For decades, Trinity Health along with other members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility’s Health Equity Group have made improving affordability of and access to medicines a focus for corporate engagements with the pharma sector. The United States has some of the highest prescription drug prices in the world. This affects not only patients who can’t afford needed medicines but also threatens healthcare budgets, and limits funding available for other areas in which public investment is needed.

One reason for these high drug prices is pharma’s use of patent extensions to block generic manufacturers from bringing lower-cost versions of the same drug to market. We see a big difference between the legitimate use of patents designed to protect the rights of the maker of an innovative medicine and the misuse of the patent system to delay the introduction of generic drugs to allow for price increases on existing drugs. For example, AbbVie has raised the price of Humira, its top-selling drug, 27 times since its launch. Humira has 130 patents, most of them secondary patents, which extended its exclusivity period by 19 years and kept the price high.

We have filed shareholder proposals for the second year at AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer, asking the Board of Directors to establish and report on a process by which the impact on patient access of extended patent exclusivities would be considered in deciding whether to apply for secondary and tertiary patents.

Two other proposals seek to understand whether the business model of pharma companies may pose human rights risks. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) underscore the right to quality and affordable health care as a fundamental human right. The filers argue that the current pharma business model often infringes on these rights. Given the upcoming EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive mandating human rights due diligence as called for in the UNGPs, the filers believe that companies undertaking human rights due diligence will be ahead of the curve.

A new proposal filed at Eli Lilly asks the Board of Directors to adopt a comprehensive human rights policy, referencing internationally recognized human rights standards, that applies to both its own operations and its suppliers, includes the right to health and establishes a process to identify, prevent, mitigate and remedy adverse human rights impacts above and beyond supplier audits.

Pfizer’s current Human Rights Policy Statement does not mention human rights impact assessments beyond addressing modern slavery risks. Investors have filed a proposal urging the Board of Directors to oversee a human rights impact assessment covering Pfizer’s operations, activities, business relationships and products—and produce a report for investors. The assessment should describe actual and potential adverse human rights impacts identified; identify rightsholders that were consulted; and discuss whether and how the results of the assessment will be integrated into Pfizer’s operations and decision making.