That is one option. It would mean that some drugs, especially those for rare conditions, are never brought to market in the first place because the expected worldwide revenue would be too low to justify spending $1B+ on a stage-3 clinical trial that might fail. Is that a good trade-off? Depends on your perspective I guess.

It might actually increase world revenue, if it causes some countries to bite the bullet and accept a higher price.

Well then we have a game theory problem. Every country wants to freeload on drug development spending to minimize their own expenses. It's unrealistic to expect that countries like India or France will voluntarily accept higher drug prices just to incentivize new drug development. If the USA decides to stop subsidizing the rest of the world then the most likely outcome will be a permanent reduction in the rate of new drug development. Would that be an improvement?

We have people dying of treatable ailments that have been understood for decades which cost less than the labour used to deny them treatment and lobby against their interests.

A slower pace for rare ailments seems like an obviously acceptable trade off.

you make a committee of old doctors and have them set the prices.