Tag Archives: SNI

California Pedigree Law, Federal Pedigree

The California ePedigree Timeline Vs. The Senate Bill Timeline

June 24, 2013 Dirk Rodgers 1 Comment

The U.S. House of Representatives passed their H.R. 1919, Safeguarding America’s Pharmaceuticals Act a few weeks ago (see, “InBrief: The Pharma Track & Trace Bill Has Passed the U.S. House Of Representatives” and also don’t miss “An Industry Protection Bill Concealed Under The Veil Of Patient Protection”). The Senate is next up with S. 957 Drug Supply Chain Security Act (or S. 959 depending on if they really did combine it with the compounding act as they passed it out of committee).

We still don’t know exactly when this bill will be debated or considered in a vote on the Senate floor but indications are that Continue reading The California ePedigree Timeline Vs. The Senate Bill Timeline →

Congress, Federal Pedigree

The Federal Lot-Based Pedigree Before Congress

June 3, 2013 Dirk Rodgers 7 Comments

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 →

California Pedigree Law

The New Grandfathering Provisions Of The California Pedigree Law

March 4, 2013 Dirk Rodgers 1 Comment

At the February 5, 2013 meeting of the California Board of Pharmacy the Board took the final vote to proceed with filing a number of important clarifying regulations–the first since the Ridley-Thomas bill was enacted in 2008 that established the current staggered effective dates. These include the recognition of the FDA Standardized Numeric Identifier (SNI) as the “unique identifier” for use on each drug package, and definition around how supply chain companies can grandfather their existing non-serialized, non-pedigreed stock at the time the law goes into effect.

The official minutes of the meeting are not yet available but the video has been posted for a few weeks now. The pertinent action occurs in the first video of the two day meeting at approximately 2:24:00 (hours:minutes:seconds). (Don’t you just love government meetings on YouTube?) The source text of the pending regulation (which is Continue reading The New Grandfathering Provisions Of The California Pedigree Law →

supply chain security

The Supply Chain Provisions Of The FDA Safety & Innovation Act

February 11, 2013 Dirk Rodgers 1 Comment

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, President Barack Obama, Representative Nancy Pelosi

Last fall the U.S. Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, and the bill was signed into law by President Obama. The purpose of the legislation was primarily to re-authorize user fees that are paid by manufacturers of drugs, medical devices and biologics, but the law also contains quite a few other things. Readers of RxTrace will recall that the well-organized attempt to add a nationwide track & trace requirement to the bill failed (see “PDUFA Will Not Include RxTEC”), but a number of very significant supply chain security elements did make it into the law under the title “Title VII—Drug Supply Chain” (see the full text of the law here). A closer look at these provisions is long overdue. Continue reading The Supply Chain Provisions Of The FDA Safety & Innovation Act →

California Pedigree

California ePedigree Uncertainty

February 4, 2013 Dirk Rodgers

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 law. For 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 →

FDA

InBrief: FDA Again Says It Plans To Publish Track & Trace Guidance By Year End

January 31, 2013 Dirk Rodgers

Many thanks to Alec Gaffney of Regulatory Focus for pointing out that the FDA just published their annual list of draft guidances that they anticipate will be published before the end of 2013. Of course, no guarantees come with it. In fact, they included the anticipation of Track & Trace guidance in last year’s list as well but nothing was published (See “FDA To Publish Track & Trace Standard By Year End“). That’s why it’s not surprising that it’s on the list again this year.

The FDA list seems to come out earlier each year. Considering that the Track & Trace guidance was included on last year’s list, perhaps it will be published in the near future. I’m not holding my breath, but it sure would be an interesting addition to the current situation in California where Continue reading InBrief: FDA Again Says It Plans To Publish Track & Trace Guidance By Year End →

Congress, Federal Pedigree

Congressional Legislation Development: Mad Libs Edition!

October 29, 2012 Dirk Rodgers 3 Comments

I’ve now finished studying the latest Congressional Discussion Draft to Improve Drug Distribution Security. As promised last Thursday, here is my analysis. Overall I’d say it is a very serious attempt to develop a raw text that everyone can agree on.

But the only reason everyone can agree on it is that there are literally hundreds of multiple-choice options (they call them “policy choices”) built in–kind of like Mad Libs. Anyone can use a marker to go through and cross out all the choices that they don’t like and they would end up with a bill that their constituency would probably accept. The problem is Continue reading Congressional Legislation Development: Mad Libs Edition! →

GS1

Should GS1 Continue Developing ePedigree Standards?

September 17, 2012 Dirk Rodgers 2 Comments

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? →

…a comprehensive exploration of the intersection between healthcare supply chains, track and trace technology, standards and global regulatory compliance