The amendments are fairly light and sprinkled throughout. Most have little to no affect on the meaning or implementation of the bill–these include reformatting, corrections and minor logical adjustments–but there are a few things that are notable. Continue reading Senators Propose Amendments To S. 959→
The Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee has just voted unanimously to combine their current draft of “S. 957, Drug Supply Chain Security Act” with their current draft of “S. 959, Pharmaceutical Compounding Quality and Accountability Act” and pass the result onto the Senate floor for consideration. No amendments were offered in today’s session on either bill before the action. All committee members who spoke on behalf of both bills spoke very favorably about them. Now that the bills have been combined they will retain the number S. 959 if I understood the wording of the vote correctly.
On a voice vote, the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives has just passed the recently named “H.R. 1919, Safeguarding America’s Pharmaceuticals Act of 2013” on to the full House of Representatives. One set of “technical” amendments offered by the bill’s authors was passed and four amendments offered by various Democrats were defeated prior to passage of the full bill by the committee. This action ensures that the bill will be debated on the full House of Representatives floor at some point in the current session. This marks the first time since 1987 that a pharmaceutical track and trace bill has made it out of a Congressional committee.
There are two pharmaceutical track & trace bills making their way through committees of Congress, one in the U.S. House of Representatives and one in the Senate. In both houses, these drafts are touted as bills to protect patients from the ill effects of illegitimate drugs in the legitimate supply chain, but, after reviewing the two drafts at length, I have concluded that the House draft is something else entirely. Rather than focusing on protection of patients, the House draft is primarily intended to protect the industry from the California pedigree law. “Patient protection” is little more than a veil to provide cover while the debate is kept on grounds more acceptable to the industry.
DISCLAIMER: RxTrace contains some of the personal thoughts, ideas and opinions of Dirk Rodgers. The material contained in RxTrace is not legal advice. Dirk Rodgers is not a lawyer. 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 Dirk Rodgers.