Research is expensive because it is conducted by well-paying professionals over multiple years, then taken to several rounds drug trials, which come with risks

Research is expensive because it is conducted by well-paying professionals over multiple years, then taken to several rounds drug trials, which come with risks of serious side effects. Negative outcomes resulting from drug trials -- as well as approved drugs -- are routinely litigated by the aggrieved parties, which result in expensive settlements or the risk of high damages (in some cases, punitive). Further, to promote public interest, patent protections on medication in most countries usually expire after 20 years, which limits the window of time in which the makers can recoup the cost. 'Tort reform' proposes (among others) to reduce the monetary risks associated with drug trials by limiting lawsuit payouts of limiting grounds to sue -- to its promoters, this benefits society at large (and the drug companies) while hurting a few individuals who happen to have found themselves embroiled in such a case. To its opponents, tort reform is an instrument to dismantle regulatory protections and results in little to no societal benefit, perversely incentivizing drugmakers to both a higher absolute quantity of drugs to drive overall revenues, while reducing the average quality of drugs to be less safe, and leave seriously injured people with no viable recourse. It's a complex problem with no easy answers.