Of course their drugs are cheaper, if drugs companies won't sell to them at huge discounts, India ignores the patents and produces the drugs themselves. Consequently, the US subsidizes their drugs, insofar as they do not contribute to the costs of R&D, including research and clinical trials for working and failed drugs.
If every country adopts that policy, which is the direction things are headed because it's the dominant strategy, the rate of medical advancement will be much lower. To quantify, about 58% of US medical funding is provided by private industry. Pharmaceuticals alone spend more than the NIH. NIH in the US spends 29 times more than NHS in the UK on health research, despite having only 6 times more people. The US spends 4 times more per capita than Australia on medical research. This is one of the two gigantic elephants in the healthcare debate auditorium, the other being patient outcomes for comparable patients. Of course US aggregate data is skewed because of the general health of the population (fatness), and those without insurance, but what happens when comparing patient outcomes between people with insurance in the US, with people that are comparably healthy (i.e. fatness and related issues) in other countries. The whole thing is basically a health-and-wealth transfer scheme from the insured to the uninsured.
We see basically the same thing whenever space research is discussed. Pompous Europeans bash US progress and "meager space funding", while the US outspends the entire world combined over 3 to 1 on space research. In the end, the "solution" to both is to cut spending to both medical and space research to global per-capita levels, and let the advanced research go undone, unless other countries choose to start contributing. Of course, that would be a true tragedy of the commons.