What you fail to take into account is that Rem-L and Rex-L are...

What you fail to take into account is that Rem-L and Rex-L are highly cost effective treatments.

Rex-L for CLBP will likely lead to less surgical intervention = cost effective. Plus greater contribution to society from increased participation due to less debilitating back pain = positive economic benefits. Plus less reliance on traditional medication and opioids = cost effective.

Rex-L for CHF will likely lead to less disease progression = cost effective over the longer term.

And you are so far off the mark with Rem-L for COVID-ARDS it's not funny. Rem-L is for people who are already very very sick (i.e. on deaths door because all other treatments, antivirals etc have failed and inflammation and respiratory distress are at extreme levels). Rem-L will likely reduce the number of days in ICU = cost effective. Rem-L will likely limit irreversibe scarring to lungs = cost effective. Rem-L will likely reduce other long covid symptoms/damage = cost effective. Rem-L likely get people back on their feet quicker therefore contributing to society quicker = positive economic benefits.

Not to mention Rem-L for saving children's lives from the devastating disease of aGvHD.

It just depends how you look at the bigger picture, those that are smart enough look past the initial cost to see the near term and longer term savings to patients, health systems and society at large.