Posts Tagged ‘California Pedigree Law’

The California ePedigree law goes into effect for manufacturers in 2015/2016.  In mid-2016 distributors and repackagers will need to comply.  The California pedigree law includes the need for manufacturers and repackagers to serialize drugs at the smallest level of distribution to pharmacies.  That’s just one of the requirements, they also need to make reference to those serial numbers in the ePedigrees that they create (manufacturers) or update (repackagers, distributors and pharmacies).  (For more on the full pedigree regulation see my essays “The California Pedigree Law” and “California Pedigree Law:  Historic Change To Commerce”).  The implications of this to repackagers are unique.  Let’s explore why. Read the rest of this entry »

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published their “Standardized Numerical Identification (SNI) for Prescription Drug Packages – Final Guidance” document almost two years ago (see my essay “FDA Aligns with GS1 SGTIN For SNDC” from back then).  The guidance was published as purely non-binding recommendations that reflected the Agency’s current thinking, but in my opinion it is a nice piece of work and can be used as a practical guide, as far as it goes, for implementing drug serialization programs today.

Why is that?  It’s because drug manufacturers and repackagers need to serialize all of their prescription drugs that enter the state of California in 2015/2016.  Can those companies make use of the FDA’s SNI guidance to comply with the serialization requirements of the California Pedigree Law?  I will answer that question in this essay, but first Read the rest of this entry »

In the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain this question becomes, should regulators—state legislatures, state Boards of Pharmacies, Congress or the FDA—mandate specific technology for serialization, ePedigree and other regulations?  This question arises whenever a new regulation is considered by any of these bodies or agencies.  It’s an important question now that the FDA is considering standards for ePedigree, Track & Trace and related things and I think there are some natural conclusions that can be drawn from past examples that lead to a potential answer.  Let’s review the history first.

EXAMPLE:  EXISTING ePEDIGREE LAWS

The language of the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) specified the kind of data that must be in a compliant pedigree but it did not identify any particular technology to carry that information.  Of course, compared with today, what kind of technology was available back in 1987 when the PDMA was first introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives?  Is it a paper pedigree?  Can it be electronic?  What is the format?  Can GS1’s Drug Pedigree Messaging Standard (DPMS) be used to comply? Read the rest of this entry »

There are more than one reasons why you shouldn’t expect to use GS1’s EPCIS by itself to comply with the California pedigree law.  Part 1 of this series showed that the traditional distributed network of EPCIS repositories in the U.S. pharma supply chain doesn’t work.  But that analysis assumed the use of the “vanilla” EPCIS standard, without the use of any “extensions”.  That’s not really the way GS1 intended EPCIS to be used.  In this and future essays of this series I will explore some of the approaches that make full use of the extensibility that is built into the standard.

In this Part of the series I want to take a closer look at the work of the Network Centric ePedigree work group of the GS1 Healthcare Traceability group.  I am one of the leaders of that group along with Dr. Mark Harrison of the Cambridge University AutoId Lab, Dr. Ken Traub, Independent Consultant, and Gena Morgan of GS1, along with strong contributions from Janice Kite of GS1 and Dr. Dale Moberg of Axway.  The larger group consists of people who work for companies in the pharmaceutical supply chain, GS1, and solution providers from around the globe, although I think the majority are from the U.S.

The NCeP group published a very interesting recording of a presentation that explains the details of their work.  It is called “NCeP – Technical Analysis Sub-Group, Event Based Pedigree”.  The purpose of this recording is to help people outside of the close-knit NCeP group to learn about the pedigree models developed there, evaluate them and provide feedback to the group about which model(s) should be Read the rest of this entry »

Within conversations held during the development of standards for electronic pedigrees it is sometimes common to hear people apply the following test to any pedigree proposal:

“A state inspector arrives at your facility without prior warning, enters the warehouse, picks up any random package of drugs and asks to see ‘the pedigree’ for this package.”

The point being made is that, according to the California Pedigree Law, at the very least, supply chain members will need to be capable of producing a full pedigree for any and every package of drugs in their possession at any time in case of a surprise inspection.

This scenario is an important one when selecting a pedigree model, but it often causes me to think about exactly what the company being inspected would show the inspector, and how they would do that.  Read the rest of this entry »

For the application of unique serial numbers, or Standard Numerical Identifiers (SNIs), to packages as part of compliance with the California Pedigree Law in 2015-2017 , GS1′s Electronic Product Code (EPC), particularly in barcode form, is the clear winning standard.  But there seems to be a very common misconception going around that for pedigree data management, all you need to do to comply with that law is to deploy a system that is based solely on the GS1 Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS) standard.  The  misconception assumes that there is a formula that can be followed to achieve compliance and that EPCIS is the whole formula.

In truth, EPCIS will almost certainly be an important component in the compliance formula but exactly how it fits, and whether there are other necessary components, has not yet been determined.

There are probably several reasons that this misconception persists.  First, GS1 US continues to promote their 2015 “Readiness” Program as if it is that formula.  The program documentation strongly implies that, if you simply follow their program, you will “be ready” to comply with the law; but it stops short of actually saying that you will be compliant.

Second, it seems like people are either able to understand the law well but not the technical standards, or they are able to understand the technical standards well but not the law.  The legal folks are left to trust what the technical people say about EPCIS, and the technical people assume that as long as the data elements identified in the law are present somewhere then EPCIS must comply.

Now I am not a legal expert but I’ve been looking at the text of the California Pedigree Law for a few years now and I think I understand it at a level that allows me to estimate how various technical approaches might fill its requirements.  Let me show you how Read the rest of this entry »