Think about it, if no GMP!, Making poor quality products does not save money. In the long run, it is more expensive finding mistakes after they have been made than preventing them in the first place. GMP is designed to ensure that mistakes do not occur. Implementation of GMP is an investment in good quality product. This will improve the sales also the health of the individual patient , as well as benefiting the industry. Making and distributing poor quality products leads to loss of credibility for everyone: both public and private health care and the manufacturer. SO GMP still the right thing TO DO!

GMP regulations require a quality approach to manufacturing, enabling companies to minimize or eliminate instances of contamination, mixups, and errors.  This in turn, protects the consumer from purchasing a product which is not effective or even dangerous. The purpose of these regulations is to assure the identity, strength, quality, and purity of drug products by requiring that manufacturers of medications adequately control manufacturing operations. GMP Manufactured Products cost more than non-GMP Manufactured Products. The requirements for QA review, process validation, stability studies, and recurring personnel GMP training add to the cost of most GMP manufactured products. Without such GMP , even well-designed drugs and medical devices may become ineffective and unsafe from defects, contamination, mislabeling, and other errors.It is important to have GMP

I agree with @merzbrashed that GMPs ensure that production of a good quality product and create credibility for a company. At first glance, it might seem burdensome and costly for manufacturers to follow GMP practices, but I think it does provide a way to produce a quality product. As @mjf34 mentions, GMP is something a customer looks for as a type of mark of a quality product like a CE mark. Overall, I think GMP is the best way to go because it is beneficial to the company to produce a quality product and even if it might be costlier upfront, it’s better than producing a bad product which could end up being extremely costly to the company in the long run (unsafe, defects, etc).

I don't necessarily agree that having zero GMP will lead to lower cost in anything. I'm not sure what type of buyer would want to purchase any product, let alone a medical device or drug, that didn't follow a certain procedure or standard in the production of that product. It seems counterintuitive. A medical device company that would choose not to have GMP is setting itself for the creation of low quality products and service. In this sense, you can argue that the failure to sell would actually lead to a higher cost all around.