In order to get a drug approved in India, you need to run clinical trial on Indians. You also need to go to through the regulatory process, which isn't cheap.
If drug companies fear that the millions they spend on getting a drug approved in India won't be recouped because the gov't issues a compulsory license, then they simply won't do it.
I mean think about it... if introducing your product to a new market resulted in a net loss, would you do it?
The really simple argument is that at the previous price very, very few people in India could afford it. So in the end it is more than likely that the revenue that is gained is higher than it would have been at the very high price.
No, I can't argue that's not true. We don't really know what Bayer's strategy was here. For all we know they could have told the Indian gov't to shove it. In that case, they gambled and lost.
Or, they could have offered the drug at 25% of the original cost and the gov't could have told them to shove it.
In order to get a drug approved in India, you need to run clinical trial on Indians. You also need to go to through the regulatory process, which isn't cheap.
If drug companies fear that the millions they spend on getting a drug approved in India won't be recouped because the gov't issues a compulsory license, then they simply won't do it.
I mean think about it... if introducing your product to a new market resulted in a net loss, would you do it?