…a comprehensive exploration of the intersection between healthcare supply chains, track and trace technology, standards and global regulatory compliance
DISCLAIMER: RxTrace contains some of the personal thoughts, ideas and opinions of RxTrace. The material contained in RxTrace is not legal advice. The writers of RxTrace are not lawyers. The reader must make their own decisions about the accuracy of the opinions expressed in RxTrace. Readers are encouraged to consult their own legal counsel and trading partners before taking any actions based on information found in RxTrace. RxTrace is not a vehicle for communicating the positions of any company, organization or individual other than RxTrace.
Last month I published an essay that analyzed the exemption language related to combination products contained in the old California pedigree law and in H.R. 3204, which was later signed into law as the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) (see “Drug-Device Combo Products Under State And Federal Pedigree Laws”). In that essay I showed how these exemptions were very similar because both were based on the existing definition of a “combination product” from 21 CFR 3.2(e). My assessment of the effect of the wording in the old California pedigree law is still valid, in my opinion, but I now believe my analysis of the language in H.R. 3204 was incorrect. Here is why. Continue reading Correction: Your Drug or Biologic Combination Product Is Probably NOT Exempt From The DQSA 
