Showing posts with label S 3343. Show all posts
Showing posts with label S 3343. Show all posts

Thursday, March 5, 2020

S 3343 Introduced – Medical Supply Chain Security


Last week Sen Hawley (R,MO) introduced S 3343, the Medical Supply Chain Security Act. The bill would add medical devices to the requirements for reporting discontinuance or interruption in the production of life-saving drugs.

Amendments


Section 2(a) of the bill would amend 21 USC 356c, Discontinuance or interruption in the production of life-saving drugs. Essentially every place the current §356c says ‘drug’ the bill would change it to say ‘drug and device’. It would also add a new paragraph (j), Additional manufacturer reporting for essential drugs and devices. This would add an annual reporting requirement for the following details about drugs and devices under §356c {new §356c(j)(1)}:

• All locations of production;
• The sourcing of all component parts;
• The sourcing of any active pharmaceutical ingredients; and
• The use of any scarce raw materials.

Section 2(b) of the bill would amend 21 USC 356c-1, Annual reporting on drug shortages. These changes would substitute the words ‘drug or device shortages’ for the word ‘drug shortages’.

Moving Forward


Hawley is not a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee so it is unlikely that this bill will be considered in Committee. I see nothing in this bill that would engender any specific opposition. If this bill were considered in Committee, I expect that it would receive bipartisan support.

Commentary


This bill, as I suspected, has nothing to do with cybersecurity issues (more on that later) and I would not normally cover this bill in my blog for that reason. But it does provide me another chance to talk about a chemical safety issue.

Hawley’s reason for crafting this bill almost certainly has to do with discussions about the expected shortage of a class of medical devices known as respirators. This discussion is related to the expected problems associated with the CODIV19 virus that is starting to affect this country. In the most serious cases of respiratory disease that are a result of a relatively small percentage of cases of the disease associated with CODIV19 patients require the breathing assistance provided by mechanical respirators.

As I have noted in a number of blog posts about responding to many large-scale chemical releases, there are a relatively limited number of respirators available at each hospital. They are expensive pieces of equipment to buy and maintain and are not needed that often in the normal course of events. Each hospital has enough of these devices on-hand to meet their normal needs. When there is a radical increase in the number of cases of respiratory injuries or disease that require the use of respirators, hospitals end up having to make triage decisions about which cases will have access to those respirators.

When the number of patients requiring the use of respirators to survive exceeds the number of available respirators, patients are going to have an increasing number of complications and many will die. If CODIV19 reaches epidemic proportions in the United States, it is very likely that we will see a large-number patients die because of the lack of respirators.

The reporting requirements of this bill will have very little impact on this situation. We will not need an increased number of respirators until there are enough severe COVID19 cases to exceed the number of available respirators. Reporting at that point will identify the problem after it is too late to do something about the issue. Respirators take time to produce and there is only a limited amount of production capability.

So, this bill will help in the finger pointing after the COVID19 outbreak is over. There is another way that his bill could be improved and that is adding a medical device cybersecurity component to the reporting requirements. That will not have anything to do with the current projected problem with the COVID19 virus, but it could help the FDA track cybersecurity issues.

The new §366c(j) could be modified by rewording (j)(1)(B) to read:

(B) the sourcing of all component parts, including software;

I will not be covering this bill any further.

Friday, February 28, 2020

Bills Introduced – 2-27-20


Yesterday with the House and Senate preparing to leave Washington for the weekend there were 83 bills introduced. Two of those bills may receive additional coverage in this blog:

H Res 875 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that domain name registration information, referred to as "WHOIS" information, is critical to the protection of the United States national and economic security, intellectual property rights enforcement, cybersecurity, as well as the health, safety, and privacy of its citizens, and should remain readily accessible. Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5] 

S 3343 A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide enhanced security for the medical supply chain. Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]

I will be watching S 3343 for language and definitions that would address cybersecurity issues related to medical device supply chain issues. Unfortunately, I suspect that this bill is probably focused more on issues related to medical supplies (gloves, masks, etc.) and drug precursor chemicals. This would due to the problems that have arisen in conjunction with the supply interruptions from Chinese manufacturers due to the COVID 19 virus outbreak. This is, of course, a serious issue, but not one that I expect to cover in this blog.

H Res 875


I do not normally spend much time covering House or Senate resolutions. Typically, they are proforma statements about broad policy issues that have no practical effect. H Res 875 certainly fits that description, but I think that it is worth mentioning in passing. Brian Krebs has described this issue well and has a personal interest in the preservation (actually restoration) of an open WHOSIS record. He has effectively used the open version of WHOSIS for many years in his investigative reporting on cybersecurity issues.

Since the GDPR is beyond the control or influence of the House of Representatives, this really is tilting at windmills, but such efforts still need to be made from time to time. Kudos to Latta for taking up this issue.

 
/* Use this with templates/template-twocol.html */