Posts Tagged ‘DPMS’

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 first time in over two years the topic of pedigree appears on the agenda of the California Board of Pharmacy for their upcoming meeting on September 7.  Earlier this year in a presentation at the FDA Track & Trace Workshop Board Executive Office Virginia Herald mentioned that the Board would take up the topics of inference, drop shipments, decommissioning and linkage between shipping orders and invoices at a future meeting in 2011.  It’s hard to tell if those will be the actual topics discussed in next week’s meeting because they aren’t called out explicitly.  Here is the item as it actually appears on the agenda: Read the rest of this entry »

One of the most recent improvements that California made to their drug pedigree law was to spread out the compliance dates by supply chain segment.   Previously, all segments had to comply with the regulation by January 2011.   Now drug manufacturers will need to comply with half of the products (or sales) by January 2015 and the remainder one year later, distributors must comply by mid-2016 and the pharmacies by mid-2017.   As I understand it, this spread was intended to help the industry fully prepare for the new requirements in their businesses.   Companies would now have time to adjust to the changes implemented by their upstream trading partners according to their earlier deadlines.

This staggered start pleased a lot of people—particularly distributors and pharmacies.   However, to me, the staggered start of the current California regulation doesn’t address the issue of complexity very well and a different kind of ramp up to full operation would be more practical and have better odds for success.

I discussed complexity in my last essay, “U.S. Pharma Supply Chain Complexity”.   I tried to show what it is about the supply chain that leads to difficulty in the setup and execution of a drug pedigree system.   On its own, the U.S. pharma supply chain is naturally complex.   A truly workable and protective pedigree system needs to deal with that natural complexity without exploding in its own complexity and cost.   As I pointed out in that essay, the problem with the more popular pedigree models (like DPMS and the various distributed pedigree models) is the large number of the point-to-point data connections that are necessary to reflect the natural complexity of the supply chain.   That adds a lot of complexity.

THE PLATEAUS OF SECURITY

No matter which model the industry implements, starting it up will have its own complexities.   In my view, regulators and industry should 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 »

Trust plays a big role in today’s U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain.  Patients trust that their doctors know what they are doing when they prescribe a medicine and they trust their pharmacist to fill their prescriptions with real medicines that were:

• manufactured to tight quality specifications,
• are well within the expiration date,
• have not been tampered with,
• have always been kept within recommended environmental tolerances,
• and have been in the control of companies who have a strong interest in supply chain integrity and in the safety of the drugs within the supply chain.

When we receive our little amber bottles of repackaged drugs from our pharmacist, we aren’t given any way to check on any of those things ourselves.  We trust that the pharmacy has done something to ensure all that.  And fortunately in the U.S., we are almost always justified in that trust.  We enjoy the safest supply chain in the world.

A WHOLE LOT O’ TRUSTIN’ GOIN’ ON

But, now if the pharmacy doesn’t get the drugs directly from the manufacturer, they trust that their wholesaler will supply them with drugs that have those characteristics too.  And if the pharmacy’s wholesaler doesn’t get the drugs directly from the manufacturer, they trust that their wholesaler’s wholesaler provides them with drugs like that too.  And if the pharmacy’s wholesaler’s wholesaler doesn’t get the drugs directly from the manufacturer, they trust that Read the rest of this entry »