The California Board of Pharmacy has begun to hold ePedigree-specific meetings with staff and a subset of the Board present. The first of these occurred on Monday of this week. The agenda was fairly long and promised action on a number of important topics, including the possibility that the Board would consider the use of EPCIS as a pedigree platform, inference, pedigree certifications and drop shipments. I came away disappointed that the only thing that happened was a brief discussion of each topic but seemingly no real action. It was almost as if the Board members and staff had made no progress on any of these topics since the March Enforcement Committee meeting. All that seemed to happen since that meeting Continue reading Hey California Board of Pharmacy: Your Time Is Running Out!
Most prescription pharmaceuticals distributed in California pass from manufacturer to pharmacy through wholesale distributors, but a small percentage are sold by the manufacturer directly to doctors and clinics. An even smaller percentage are sold through small companies licensed as kit manufacturers or distributors to dental offices, fire departments, ambulance companies and other carriers of emergency medical kits. These transactions are just as open to the introduction of illegitimate products as the larger transactions that we normally think of when we talk about the use of drug pedigrees, but because they are outside of the ordinary, they are at risk of falling between the cracks. That is, they might be a lot more complex, or not even possible, under the California pedigree law. Continue reading Falling Between The Cracks Of The California Pedigree Law
The current drafts of the nationwide pharmaceutical track and trace (Pedigree) bills on the floors of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives both include an initial lot-based pedigree requirement that may be based on paper or electronic documentation (see “The Politics Of Federal Track & Trace Legislation”). What is a lot-based pedigree and how is it different from one based on package-level serial numbers? Let’s take a closer look at the kind of system that these bills would require. Keep in mind that the Senate bill would mandate this kind of pedigree system for the next 10 years and the House bill would make it permanent.
First of all, according to both bills, pharma manufacturers would be required to Continue reading The Federal Lot-Based Pedigree Before Congress
Watching the progress of the nationwide pharmaceutical track & trace bills in the U.S. Congress has been very educational. Now that different track & trace bills are on the floors of the Senate and the House of Representatives (see “InBrief: A Track And Trace Bill Has Made It To The House Floor” and “InBrief: A Track & Trace bill Has Made It To The Senate Floor”) I have been trying to pick up on the politics that underlies the current situation in an attempt to figure out what is likely to happen next.
Both of the current bills have been described as “bipartisan”. I don’t think that’s exactly true, but before I explain why, Continue reading The Politics Of Federal Track & Trace Legislation
During the March 14, 2013 meeting of the Enforcement Committee of the California Board of Pharmacy, Joshua Room, Supervising Deputy Attorney General at California Department of Justice assigned to the California Board of Pharmacy distributed copies of draft text that he is looking for public comments on. The draft is for regulations covering pedigree “certification”, the use of “inference” and “inspection” of electronic pedigrees. Unfortunately the text is Continue reading Draft Regulations On Certifications Within California ePedigrees
There was a particularly interesting public dialog that occurred during the March 14, 2013 meeting of the Enforcement Committee of the California Board of Pharmacy. I have been waiting for the official video recording of the meeting to be posted by the State of California but something seems to be holding it up. Fortunately, I recorded the audio myself.
UPDATE: Apparently the video has been out there for almost 3 weeks. I was looking for it in the wrong place. Find it here.
The dialog was between Joshua Room, Supervising Deputy Attorney General at California Department of Justice assigned to the California Board of Pharmacy, and Bob Celeste, Director, GS1 Healthcare US. Mr. Celeste had just finished presenting an update to the Committee on the recently published GS1 US Guideline (see “The New GS1 Healthcare US Track & Trace Guidance”) when Mr. Room asked him to remain at the front of the room to serve as a foil for an experiment he wanted to try. Mr. Room had
Continue reading The Board of Pharmacy Must Respond To Ideas For Making EPCIS Work
I finally had time to listen to the recording of the original webcast of the interview with Virginia Herold, the Executive Officer of the California Board of Pharmacy that occurred on March 20, 2013. Shabbir Dahod of TraceLink, a supplier of ePedigree solutions and other supply chain products and services, asked a series of very detailed and very interesting questions of Ms. Herold. The information conveyed through the questions and answers are very compelling and anyone interested in meeting the requirements of the law should listen to the whole recording. You can get access to it here on the TraceLink website. Continue reading Q&A With Virginia Herold, Executive Officer, California Board Of Pharmacy
Not all prescription drugs will need to comply with the California pedigree law on January 1, 2015 or 2016. In fact, there are a number of important exemptions that cover entire classes of certain drugs and certain types of transactions for all drugs. The volume of drug packages that could escape being serialized and pedigreed by those effective dates is not huge, but if you are a manufacturer or wholesaler, you should familiarize yourself with the list of exemptions. If you are lucky enough to make or handle any of the exempt drugs or transactions you might as well take advantage of your exemption.
The list of exemptions are covered in the California Business and Professions Code under section 4034 (g)(1) through (9) (see pages 20-21 of the “2013 Lawbook For Pharmacy”). Section 4034(g) simply states, “The following transactions are exempt from the pedigree requirement created by this section:” Continue reading Are Your Drugs Exempt From The California Pedigree Law?