Tag Archives: DPMS

California ePedigree Uncertainty

Pedigree law approaches CaliforniaImportant Notice To Readers of This Essay On November 27, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013 into law. That act has many provisions, but one is to pre-empt all existing and future state serialization and pedigree laws like those that previously existed in California and Florida. Some or all of the information contained in this essay is about some aspect of one or more of those state laws and so that information is now obsolete. It is left here only for historical purposes for those wishing to understand those old laws and the industry’s response to them.A lot of things related to ePedigree in the U.S. supply chain are cooking right now but they seem to be happening a little too slowly, so it will be interesting to see where it all ends up in the next few years.  After developing the Drug Pedigree Messaging Standard (DPMS) in 2006-2007, GS1 is now taking only the initial steps toward adding network-centric ePedigree capabilities to their EPCIS and related standards.  The California Board of Pharmacy says they would like to be able to accept a semi-centralized network centric approach as long as it includes all the stuff listed in their pedigree lawFor nearly 18 months, GS1 U.S. has been “nearing publication” of a draft guideline—six years in the making—that is supposed to help companies who want to use EPCIS to meet the California law.  Congress considered passing a Federal track & trace regulation that would have preempted the California law last year but failed from lack of agreement between the parties.  Some companies are making good progress on meeting the serialization requirement but the number who have the pedigree part figured out are those who have settled on DPMS.  All the while the California pedigree deadlines are rushing toward us like a bus-sized asteroid heading straight toward Earth.  Not surprisingly, the asteroid is moving faster than the efforts to divert or absorb it.

I’ve written about my theory that the date of impact won’t be pushed out again, no matter what happens (for a full explanation of that theory, see “Will The California ePedigree Dates Slip Again?”).

What can be done?  In my view, it’s going to be determined by Continue reading California ePedigree Uncertainty

How Should Inference Work?

5 Boxes
Drawing by Jasmaine Mathews

Important Notice To Readers of This Essay On November 27, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013 into law. That act has many provisions, but one is to pre-empt all existing and future state serialization and pedigree laws like those that previously existed in California and Florida. Some or all of the information contained in this essay is about some aspect of one or more of those state laws and so that information is now obsolete. It is left here only for historical purposes for those wishing to understand those old laws and the industry’s response to them.The wide-scale use of “inference” in the pharmaceutical supply chain is essential to the successful operation of a track & track or ePedigree system.  Companies cannot be expected to open every case they plan to ship, or that they receive, so that they can figure out exactly which package-level serial numbers are involved.  The use of the serial number packaging hierarchy, or, “Aggregation information”, to “infer” which packages are being shipped or received is the only way to maintain a level of supply chain efficiency that is close to pre-serialization levels.  On the other hand, regulator acceptance of the use of inference in the supply chain has the potential to complicate their investigation of criminals.

In recognition of its importance in maintaining efficiencies, the California legislature instructed the Board of Pharmacy to draw up rules that would allow companies to optionally make use of it (see my essay “Inference in the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain” for the exact text of the inference provisions of the California Business and Professions Code).  It leaves the important question about who Continue reading How Should Inference Work?

Data Ownership In The Track & Trace Cloud

Cloud over IllinoisImportant Notice To Readers of This Essay On November 27, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013 into law. That act has many provisions, but one is to pre-empt all existing and future state serialization and pedigree laws like those that previously existed in California and Florida. Some or all of the information contained in this essay is about some aspect of one or more of those state laws and so that information is now obsolete. It is left here only for historical purposes for those wishing to understand those old laws and the industry’s response to them.Who will own the data that supply chain trading partners store in some future cloud-based, semi-centralized Network Centric ePedigree (NCeP) data repository?  I met one potential future repository service provider who seemed to think that they would own that data.  Imagine their excitement.  All the data about where drugs go throughout the supply chain!  Think of the value they could mine from that.

Well, that’s never going to happen because companies in the supply chain won’t sign up for handing over all of their supply chain data to some third-party just so they can comply with regulations, especially when there exists an alternative approach that would allow them to avoid using a third-party and still comply (by using DPMS).  And regulatory agencies are Continue reading Data Ownership In The Track & Trace Cloud

“The Shadows Of Things That MAY BE, Only” : EPCIS and California Compliance

Magoo_christmas_futureImportant Notice To Readers of This Essay On November 27, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013 into law. That act has many provisions, but one is to pre-empt all existing and future state serialization and pedigree laws like those that previously existed in California and Florida. Some or all of the information contained in this essay is about some aspect of one or more of those state laws and so that information is now obsolete. It is left here only for historical purposes for those wishing to understand those old laws and the industry’s response to them.Currently, we know that companies can use GS1’s Drug Pedigree Messaging Standard (DPMS) to comply with the California pedigree law.  That’s been known for a long time now.  But many companies have been hoping to use GS1’s more general purpose Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS) standard instead for almost as long.  For just as long, it has been known that a number of problems arise when you try to figure out exactly how to apply EPCIS to California compliance.

The problem is, EPCIS was originally envisioned by its creators to share supply chain “visibility” data.  That is, event data that was to be collected automatically based on Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID) reads picked up by readers that were to be spread around the supply chain by each of its members.  The collection of RFID readers were to form a kind of “visibility” of each RFID tag applied to the products in the supply chain.  From this visibility would come benefits.  One of those benefits was to be Continue reading “The Shadows Of Things That MAY BE, Only” : EPCIS and California Compliance

California Board of Pharmacy Clarifies Use Of GS1 EPCIS

“The Californians”

Important Notice To Readers of This Essay On November 27, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013 into law. That act has many provisions, but one is to pre-empt all existing and future state serialization and pedigree laws like those that previously existed in California and Florida. Some or all of the information contained in this essay is about some aspect of one or more of those state laws and so that information is now obsolete. It is left here only for historical purposes for those wishing to understand those old laws and the industry’s response to them.As I indicated last week, I wanted to write about a specific dialog that occurred at the December 4, 2012 California Board of Pharmacy Enforcement Committee meeting.  The important exchange came at the end of the meeting during the catchall agenda item called “General Discussions” when topics that are not on the agenda can be raised by Board members or the general public in attendance.

As soon as the Chair opened that agenda item, Michael Ventura of GlaxoSmithKline rose and strode to the microphone.  The exchange that followed was captured on the meeting video.  I transcribed the exchange below as it happened because I think it provides a number of important clarifications about  Continue reading California Board of Pharmacy Clarifies Use Of GS1 EPCIS

The Significance of the Abbott, McKesson and VA Pilot

Last month I had the opportunity to see the presentation by Abbott Labs, McKesson, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and GHX about their recent and ongoing Network Centric ePedigree pilot.  [NOTE:  GS1 removed the PDF file from their website after my essay was published.  See the comments below this essay for more. – Dirk.]  I see that a presentation on the same topic is on the agenda for this week’s HDMA Track & Trace Technology Seminar.  If you are attending that event, don’t miss that presentation because this pilot is an important one.  I normally like to attend the HDMA event but I won’t be there this year due to a long-scheduled vacation.

The pilot implemented a “Centralized” Network Centric ePedigree (NCeP) system. Continue reading The Significance of the Abbott, McKesson and VA Pilot

IBM Divests EPCIS and ePedigree Suite

According to the IBM website, IBM has sold its Infosphere Traceability Server (ITS) product to Frequentz, a company based in Los Altos, CA.

The IBM ITS webpage now states:

“Frequentz acquired the IBM InfoSphere Traceability Server in Oct 2, 2012. All future information regarding the InfoSphere Traceability Server products will be available from Frequentz.”

No other information about the sale was included.

This is stunning news considering the history of the ITS product, and because Continue reading IBM Divests EPCIS and ePedigree Suite

Should GS1 Continue Developing ePedigree Standards?

Photo by immrchris

Important Notice To Readers of This Essay On November 27, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013 into law. That act has many provisions, but one is to pre-empt all existing and future state serialization and pedigree laws like those that previously existed in California and Florida. Some or all of the information contained in this essay is about some aspect of one or more of those state laws and so that information is now obsolete. It is left here only for historical purposes for those wishing to understand those old laws and the industry’s response to them.For the first time since GS1 produced the Drug Pedigree Messaging Standard (DPMS) standard in 2005, GS1 has just published a call-to-action for the formation of a new standards development group to focus on a new pedigree-related standard.  The new group will be called the “Pedigree Security, Choreography and Checking Service (PSCCS) Mission Specific Work Group (MSWG)”.  According to the call-to-action:

“This group will develop standards to allow pharmaceutical supply chain parties striving to meet pedigree regulation requirements, by gathering and checking pedigree event data.  Standards will also address data confidentiality and security.  This MSWG will create

        A) standard for security framework applicable to EPCIS and,

        B) pedigree checking services.”

This group’s output will not be a self-contained pedigree standard, per se, but Continue reading Should GS1 Continue Developing ePedigree Standards?