I'm pretty sure the inventors at the U of Heidelberg hold the patent on HBED-CC (aka PSMA-11). I don't know what arrangements they've made with UCSF and others who use it. The PET scan is investigational, so the insurance company has a lot of discretion over whether to cover it. There is a cost for both the radio-indicator and the PET scan. The other wrinkle in the cost is whether they use a PET/CT or a PET/MRI (which is probably more expensive and more accurate).
NIH doesn't charge. Its entry in the PSMA PET scan challenge is the F18-DCFBC PET. Johns Hopkins, which had previously tested that one, is now testing F18-DCFPyL. They believe it is more sensitive, and in head-to-head trials against the Ga-68-PSMA-HBED-CC, the DCFPyL was significantly better:Comparison of [18F]DCFPyL and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET Imaging in Patients with Relapsed Prostate Cancer
The other major entry in the PET challenge is F18-FACBC (fluciclovine). It just went into expanded trials in the US (NY, NJ, LA & San Diego), UK & Norway. It had been tested at Emory and in Italy for about
a decade. The hope is that it is more specific than the PSMA-based PETs.
There are several more in clinical trials, all using different ligands. We'll have to see which one rises to the top.