Posts Tagged ‘PDMA’

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 »

I attended the Partnership for Safe Medicines (PSM) Interchange 2011 conference on October 27 in Washington DC.  (I’ll cover that event more fully in a future essay.)  For me, the event couldn’t have been better, but I measure events like this perhaps a little differently than most people.  The agenda is important and the quality of the speakers is absolutely important, but in my view those are simply the things that lead to the one thing that can transform a merely good conference into a great conference:  the quality of the attendees.

(The quality of the attendees is exactly why I like the HDMA Track and Trace Seminar.  BTW, this year’s HDMA event starts this Thursday).

In the case of this year’s PSM event, I rate the quality of the attendees very high, and that’s because I had a number of great conversations with some very knowledgeable people during the breaks and at the social event the evening before.  That was my interaction with the attendees, not the speakers.  One of the topics of conversation surrounded the question of what exactly it was the led to the successful challenge to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) pedigree provisions in the RxUSA v. HHS court case and appeal and whether or not the same thing might occur with other drug pedigree laws.

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION GOES UNANSWERED

One of the first speakers at the PSM event was U.S. Representative Jim Matheson (D-UT), sponsor of H.R.3026, the “Safeguarding America’s Pharmaceuticals Act of 2011” which was introduced into the House of Representatives on September 22, 2011.  There are some differences, but the core of this new bill is basically the same as Read the rest of this entry »

If you are a regular reader of RxTrace but you still haven’t read Fortune Magazine’s recent article, “Drug Theft Goes Big” by Katherine Eban, then I suggest that you stop reading this essay right now and spend the next 15 minutes absorbing her article carefully.  And then return here for my analysis.  It’s that good and that important.

Many of you will remember Katherine Eban as the author of the excellent book “Dangerous Doses, A True Story of Cops, Counterfeiters and the Contamination of America’s Drug Supply”.  See my comments on the book here where I point out that a lot has changed since the events that are documented so well in the book.

The new Fortune article is a great update on what drug supply chain criminals have been up to since “Dangerous Doses” was published back in 2005.  The greatest thing about the article is Read the rest of this entry »

Understanding the concept of “Normal Distribution” is important in understanding the status of pedigree regulations in the United States pharmaceutical supply chain.  The term itself didn’t exist back in the late 1980′s when the federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) pedigree provisions were originally enacted by Congress but the concept is built into that law as the “Authorized Distributor of Record” (ADR) concept.  When states began enacting their own pedigree legislation back in the early 2000′s, the term “normal distribution channel” was defined to describe the path of drugs when they move through the most common–or “normal”–sequence of supply chain owners.  It’s a concept that is explicitly defined in most state pedigree legislation.

When a pedigree law is a “normal distribution” law, it generally means that pedigrees are not needed for any shipment or change of ownership where the drugs do not leave this common/typical/normal path as defined in the law.  But as soon as a change of ownership or custody occurs where the drug leaves this “normal” path, a pedigree is then necessary. 

Typically, when a pedigree is required outside the “normal distribution channel”, that pedigree must Read the rest of this entry »

I recently read in Pharmaceutical Commerce online magazine about the apparent resolution of the RxUSA lawsuit that had delayed implementaton of a couple of the pedigree provisions of the Federal PDMA (Prescription Drug Marketing Act).  While Pharmaceutical Commerce did its usual great job of providing historical context, I thought it might be an appropriate topic for the RxTrace blog.  But before I had time to document the history of the PDMA in my own words, Brian Daleiden beat me to it in the Supply Network Blog.  So rather than writing my own version, I gladly refer you to his post.  Between the Pharmaceutical Commerce article and Brian’s post, I have nothing more to say right now.

The Supply Network Blog is a fairly new publication of TraceLink, the successor to SupplyScape, my former employer.  I look forward to hearing more from their blog in the future so I recently subscribed.  Check it out and see what you think.

Conversations about the merits of various pedigree and authentication models usually start from dissatisfaction with some characteristic of the current GS1 DPMS pedigree model. I maintain that the design of DPMS—including its perceived flaws—is merely a reflection of the current state and federal pedigree laws and regulations. Characteristics that people don’t like—like digital signatures, a growing document as drugs move down the supply chain, and the fact that Supply Chain Master Data is not used by DPMS—are actually all characteristics of the laws and/or regulations, so any alternate pedigree model that would truly be usable for compliance would need those characteristics too.

But that’s not exactly what I want to discuss in this essay. Instead, I wanted to explain my theory of what U.S. pedigree laws are trying to accomplish in the first place. Forget about how they do it for now. What were the goals of those who wrote these laws and regulations? I’ll agree that this is impossible to know for sure but I think I can construct a pretty convincing theory. I don’t know any of the legislators or congresspeople who wrote these laws, but I have studied their work for over four years now. I have made the following observations.

1. The highest priority goal of the Florida and California laws appears to be to detect the introduction of illegitimate drugs (counterfeit, stolen, up-labeled, diverted, etc.) into the legitimate supply chain as early as possible, preferably at the very first transaction. These laws accomplish this by requiring companies buying drugs within the supply chain to receive the full supply chain history of those drugs at the time of the purchase (contained in a “pedigree”), and, most importantly, by requiring them to verify the legitimacy of those prior transactions. In Florida that verification can be performed by direct contact, such as a phone call, email, fax, etc., or, optionally, through the use if digital signatures. In California, this verification can only be performed through the use of digital signatures. The federal PDMA, on the other hand, does not appear to obligate the buyer to do any verification of the information provided on pedigrees they receive.Finally, Florida and California both require the recipient of the shipment to confirm that the physical drugs they received match those described by the pedigrees they received. That seems obvious, doesn’t it? Why would any legislative body require all or some supply chain participants to go through all the expense to generate and pass pedigree information but stop short of requiring anyone to actually look at it? Well, oddly, the federal PDMA appears to do just that.
2. There is a clear attempt in the laws to help identify who participated in the introduction of the illegitimate product. This is important if your goal is to efficiently and quickly investigate the suspected crime. This would aid in shutting down the criminals as quickly as possible before they are able to spread bad medical products very deeply into the supply chain. Read the rest of this entry »