Posts Tagged ‘Digital Signatures’

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 »

© Copyright 2011 Duncan Champney. used with Permission. This image was created with FractalWorks, a high performance fractal renderer for Macintosh computers. FractalWorks is available on the Mac App Store (Click on image).

The debate over pedigree regulatory models in the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain often centers around how much data for each package of drugs needs to be moved between trading partners as those drugs move down the supply chain from the manufacturer to distributor(s) and ultimately to the pharmacy.  The ideal model would minimize the amount of data moved yet always allow each member of the supply chain to check the prior history—the pedigree—of the drugs they are about to buy.

At a superficial level this appears to be all you need to do, but when you take a closer at the details of how the supply chain actually works in the U.S. you will see that there are other characteristics besides data volume per package that need to be considered.

FOUR VIEWS OF THE U.S. SUPPLY CHAIN

In the debates and discussions over pedigree regulatory models we are used to seeing a view of the supply chain that shows one manufacturer, one distributor and one pharmacy.  That view masks so much important complexity that if we were to select a regulatory model or solution based on that view it would be far from ideal.

Here is a view of the supply chain where the vertical scale shows something closer to the true proportions between those three segments. Read the rest of this entry »

Digital electronic messages can be transmitted from one party to another using a wide range of communications technologies.  Today, businesses that make use of the internet to transmit their business messages to and from their trading partners make use of standards-based Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) message formatting. 

EDI messages are typically transmitted point-to-point, from one business to one other business.  There are a large number of EDI message types defined but in the pharmaceutical supply chain the most common messages are purchase orders, purchase order acknowledgments, invoices and advance shipment notices (ASN’s).  (While I have the chance, I’d like to point out that ASN’s are not pedigrees for multiple reasons that I will not cover in this essay.)

In the U.S. pharma supply chain AS2 is the most common communications protocol in use for EDI message exchange.  AS2 provides generalized message security to ensure that the messages cannot be understood or tampered with by unauthorized parties during movement from sender to recipient.  According to Wikipedia, these are achieved through the use of digital certificates and encryption.  Messages can optionally be digitally signed by the sender to provide non-repudiation within the AS2 payload context.

Electronic pedigrees as defined by the states of Florida and California are messages that contain fairly complex legal documentation which describe the chain of custody or ownership of a given package of drugs, but they also contain several types of legally required certifications. Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been involved in a number of conversations lately that included differing opinions about what will be necessary to “certify” a drug pedigree in California after their pedigree law goes into effect (2015-2017, depending on your role in the supply chain).  It’s a contentious issue, especially for those who wish that a distributed pedigree model would comply. 

The California Law is fairly clear that the pedigree must contain, “A certification under penalty of perjury from a responsible party of the source of the dangerous drug that the information contained in the pedigree is true and accurate.”  And that, among a list of other things, it must include “…the name and address of each person certifying delivery or receipt of the dangerous drug.”

In the California language, a “dangerous drug” is Read the rest of this entry »

The original California Pedigree Law was passed back in 2004 and it was subsequently modified by the State Legislature in 2006 and again in 2008. In all three instances, I understand that members of the legislature and the Governor’s office worked closely with the State Board of Pharmacy to develop the final content and language.

I heard that one of the goals was to create a better law than the one in Florida. Did they succeed? In order to find out, let’s take a closer look at how they compare.

The law that is currently on the books in California differs from the Florida Pedigree Law in the following ways:

1. It is fully electronic (it is NOT paper-based)
   The law and all of the discussion of the law by the Board of Pharmacy make it clear that the only acceptable form of a pedigree is electronic. This make it much more reasonable to implement because supply chain members can make use solely of computers to exchange, store and validate pedigrees, without fear that their trading partners can only handle paper pedigrees.
2. Pharmacy returns must be reflected on pedigrees
   This was an original requirement of the Florida Pedigree Law too, but it was removed under pressure from lobbyists before the law went into effect. So far, it remains intact in California, but the law is not yet in effect. What it means is that when a pharmacy buys drugs from someone and they return those drugs, regardless of how little time has transpired, they must provide a pedigree update so that subsequent buyers of those drugs can see their purchase, and return transactions. This is no different from the requirements faced by all other segments.
3. It starts with the manufacturer
   In Florida the first wholesaler started the pedigree. In California, the pedigree must be started by the manufacturer or it is not valid. If you are looking to expose the full history of package of drugs, how could you not start with the manufacturer? I even think the manufacturers generally agree with that notion.Interestingly, the Law doesn’t actually require anything of the manufacturers directly. It is directed at wholesalers who are licensed to operate within the state. Distribution of a drug without a pedigree that was started by the manufacturer is illegal and subject to penalties, but it is the wholesaler who violates the law and is punished, not the manufacturer. Thus, if a given manufacturer fails to provide California wholesalers with serialized product and compliant pedigrees by the time the law goes into effect, it will be up to the wholesaler to decide not to distribute those drugs within California in order to avoid violation of the law and avoid the associated penalties. The only risk a manufacturer takes on is that their drugs may no longer reach patients in California (and the subsequent PR firestorm that would follow).
4. It requires item-level serialization
   California is very clear that they consider the concepts of “electronic track and trace” and “item-level serialization” as being inseparable. That is, if you have one but not the other, then you don’t have a pedigree system. Every drug package must have a unique identifier on it, applied by the manufacturer or repackager, and that UID must be included in the pedigree (the electronic record). This is a substantial difference from the Florida law which has no such requirement.
5. No holes designed to accommodate special interests
   I’m not aware of any special treatment in the Law for any particular segment of the supply chain. Florida opened several holes that seriously compromise the intent of their law. So far, California has resisted opening holes, unless you consider pushing back the effective date to 2015-2017 a “hole”.

Attentive readers will notice that I have listed these differences in the same order as my list of failures of the Florida Pedigree Law in my earlier post about the Florida Law. This is my way of showing that California has, so far, created a pedigree regulation that does not have any of the major failures of the Florida regulation.

These are the major differences, but what about the common characteristics? Here are the key things that the California Law has in common with the Florida Law:

• Reliance on Digital Signatures
  Florida allows a pedigree to be created, stored and passed in electronic form, though they don’t require it. But if a Florida pedigree is in electronic form, digital signatures are required for the same purpose as a hand-executed signature on a paper document. The digital signature legally binds the signing person or entity to the content of the electronic document. Florida identified some specific standards that ensure that the digital signatures possess the all-important quality of non-repudiation. The California Pedigree Law does not, itself, specify any standards for digital signatures, but the Board of Pharmacy’s Q&A (see their Q72) calls out the fact that the California Code of Regulations identifies the specific characteristics that must result from a compliant digital signature architecture for electronic documents. The digital signature standards that are compliant in Florida would also be compliant in California.The fact that California included the use of digital signatures is significant because it ensures that each pedigree can stand on its own as a self-contained, self-secure package. This maximizes the value of the entire pedigree architecture because the security mechanism that prevents tampering goes with the package itself. No one has to rely on the access security of a given server or group of servers to prevent tampering. And, if tampering does occur, it can be easily detected, unlike tampering of pedigree approaches that rely solely on server access security. In that case, if server security is breached, you can’t tell which pedigrees were modified and which were not, rendering them all suspicious.
• It distributes responsibility for monitoring supply chain security to all supply chain participants
  This is the one genius concept of the Florida Law and California retained it, thus qualifying those involved for genius status as well. It’s a regulatory approach that is relatively new but is likely to become much more common in the face of perpetual budget “crises” in state and federal government agencies. Instead of requiring trading partners to simply keep records of their own buying and selling history for each drug so that they can be audited by an inspector at some later date, these laws require them to check the validity of the full pedigree at the time of each purchase transaction, in near real-time.Notice the difference. In the first instance, it is up to the State Board of Pharmacy inspector to detect suspicious activity in the supply chain. But how often will a state inspector visit, and how many records will they be able to review? It’s inconceivable that this approach would result in the detection of illegitimate activity.But when every purchase of a drug as it passes down the supply chain requires the buyer to run a validity check on the full transaction history of that specific bottle, it greatly increases the odds that most suspicious transactions will be detected. And for most suspicious events in the history there will normally be multiple opportunities for detection. Here, digital signatures are the enabling technology. They allow all of this supply chain monitoring activity to occur reliably and automatically inside computers that are distributed throughout the supply chain, without human intervention and without slowing the movement of drugs.

So did California succeed in creating a better law than Florida? I propose that there is almost no comparison so the question may be moot. The California Pedigree Law is so much more far-reaching than the one in Florida. While Florida focused on disrupting some very troublesome practices being performed by a few nefarious licensed and unlicensed wholesalers, California’s law is designed to cause a major reorientation of the pharmaceutical supply chain approach to security, monitoring and policing (see also The Deputized Supply Chain). This has major implications that go well beyond those of the Florida law.

Faced with that, it is not surprising that it was necessary to push out the effective dates to 2015-2017. Transformation this big takes time to implement.