I doubt this very much. Photocopying by undergraduates is almost irrelevant to the question of subscription prices and collection development spending. It is the assumption by administrative masters of the budget that photocopying reduces the need for collection development spending that has justified cutting libraries' shares of spending since the success of the Xerox model 914 in the 1960s. I would think the sources of most coursepack materials, the bulk of which I believe are produced for undergraduates, are substantially different from advanced research materials found in most science journals. This is incorrect.
Costs are substantial in spite of direct and tax-related subsidies.
If you doubt this, you can check the publishing costs and income of many association publishers that are a matter of public record. You might also check your library shelves to measure the exponential growth in pages of most science journals.