Money isn't the only incentive but it is an important one especially for publicly traded companies. You need lots of money to develop and test new medical devices.

There is ample evidence that creative workers are DE-incentivized by money.

If this were true then companies that succeed in producing new, creative high tech products would pay their most creative employees very little. We don't observe this.

You assume that money is the only reason for people to to develop new medical devices. People could also do so because it helps people. Because the technology is awesome. Any number of other reasons.

There are only limited resources available, including the creativity and time of engineers, and we need a way to allocate them over our (virtually) unlimited needs. If we're not going to use a market to make those sorts of decisions, what should we do?

It may seem heartless to pass over a drug which could 'only' save a few thousand lives, but even if you can't put a dollar price on human life there's still an opportunity cost in other lives which could be saved by using medical resources more effectively. A functioning healthcare market ought to look something like triage; people who gain the most benefit from medical attention will receive prompt and effective service, while some people are unfortunately going to have to be turned away.

In situations where this is the case, the company in question doesn't need to be ordered by the government to do this.

Big Pharma was in favor of Obamacare

Two possible reasons:

(1) Blackmail--Obamacare harmed them, but big Pharma was told by Democrats that if they didn't support it the Democrats would pass something that harmed them even more. The medical device industry didn't support Obamacare and as a result they got hit with a special tax in the final bill.

(2) Reduced competition--Obamacare makes it harder for other firms to enter the pharmaceutical industry.