Big pharma currently doesn't want to cure medical conditions, it wants to sell drugs continuously. (See also: lack of development of new antibiotics, huge over-investment in anti-depressants, etc.)

New medicines are very expensive to develop because of the extreme regulatory environment and relatively short patent duration (two decades from registering a patent on a drug to it going into a free-for-all of cheap generics: development takes 8-16 years and the remaining 4-12 years are all the time the developer has got to amortize their costs and turn a profit).

But the regulations and requirements for extensive testing exist for very good reason, to prevent this sort of thing from happening:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_Sulfanilamide (1938: at least 100 dead)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#History (1950s: use for morning sickness caused >2000 deaths, 10,000 born with severe deformities)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vioxx (2004: 88-140,000 cases of serious heart disease)

There's no solution to the problem of complex, emergent, lethal drug side-effects on the horizon. So we have to have expensive clinical trials and statistical tests to rule out a high risk of harm before a new drug can be released. So the pharmaceutical industry has a baked-in incentive to maximize revenue by ignoring certain conditions (brief/acute illnesses, especially those afflicting the poor or the developing world) and prioritize chronic diseases of affluence. There's no fix within the established framework, because the established framework is defective by emergent design.

We could tinker with the international intellectual property regime governing pharmaceutical patent duration, but that kicks the ball up to WTO treaty level. Or we could consider non-profit bases for pharmaceutical R&D, but that goes against the current dominant free market ideology.