Having worked a bit in the industry, changes in regulation aren't actually the main problem. There are two trends combining: some tightening of the rules, yes (although the 'hockey stick phase of regulatory interference' was after WW2) and, much more importantly, a complete collapse of research success.
We're still basically following the process established in 192x (Bayer, sulfa drugs) of throwing any structure we can think of onto some essay, into some mice, then humans. Educated guesses have become more educated, but not much better.
Regulation has only become a burden because we're chasing ever-decreasing improvements. Even placebo got better over the last decades, which may have doomed a few potential blockbusters.
It's obviously a problem of the lower-hanging fruits having been picked, and not all is bleak (kicking HIVs butt these days). But a cell just happens to be 35mill lines of self-modifying, multi-layered, self-evaluating, quantum-effects-using complexity and we're far away from a rational, hypothesis-driven drug discovery process.
Deregulation wouldn't actually help. While it is possibly attractive for a patient now, that comes at a certain and significant disadvantage for future patients: If you could sell everything you wanted, there'd be no incentive for studying efficacies – it'd just be random stuff that may work, competing in a dysfunctional marketplace.
Dysfunctional because nobody would know anything. Even with the somewhat professional studies we have today, and even for professionals, it is a major undertaking to form a solid opinion on a drug. Throw in patients who have nothing to lose and it'd probably be worse than it ever was.
It's not like experimental treatments aren't available today. Almost every cancer patient is enrolled in one or more trials, unless she immediately responds to existing drugs. Quite a few people have traveled to Asia for some stem cell snake oil (less money, nice tan, no improvement, life-threatening complications being the usual outcome).