More on RFID and Pharma Legislation...
In response to several questions about my previous post:
The Amendment language doesn't "prohibit" the use of RFID by the pharmaceutical industry.
But the language specifies that manufacturers must use an anti-counterfeiting technology that is visible with the naked eye and does not require a scanner or reader to function. That is not RFID, obviously.
Now I can see the argument that a company could use both -- RFID to satisfy the requirement to provide a unique identifier and another technology to visually authenticate the drug without needing a reader or scanner. But that could be redundant and expensive.
There are lots of conceivable ways to put a unique ID number on a package of drugs besides RFID -- printed serial numbers on a lable, laser etching on the bottle, etc. There are IT pros and cons to each, obviously.
To the degree that some complain that the Pharma industry has been too slow to adopt RFID as a solution, the uncertainty about what the Secretary might adopt as the anti-counterfeiting technology standard will not speed RFID adoption along -- that's for certain.
The bigger issue though is that the US Congress, via legislation that has already passed the Senate, is making decisions that may dramatically shape the future of the RFID industry in this market -- facilitate it, direct it, or kill it.
And until I posted it on this blog site, no one in the industry seemed to notice. And they certainly are not organized to make their case to Congress about a preferred outcome that will benefit RFID adoption. Somebody is bending the Senate's ear about anti-counterfeiting technology for drugs -- and it's not the RFID crowd.
Remember this when Congress turns to food safety issues, or tracking hazardous chemicals, or facilitating product recalls, or debating personal authentication technologies for immigrants seeking jobs in the United States. Are those in the RFID space making their voices heard?
The Amendment language doesn't "prohibit" the use of RFID by the pharmaceutical industry.
But the language specifies that manufacturers must use an anti-counterfeiting technology that is visible with the naked eye and does not require a scanner or reader to function. That is not RFID, obviously.
Now I can see the argument that a company could use both -- RFID to satisfy the requirement to provide a unique identifier and another technology to visually authenticate the drug without needing a reader or scanner. But that could be redundant and expensive.
There are lots of conceivable ways to put a unique ID number on a package of drugs besides RFID -- printed serial numbers on a lable, laser etching on the bottle, etc. There are IT pros and cons to each, obviously.
To the degree that some complain that the Pharma industry has been too slow to adopt RFID as a solution, the uncertainty about what the Secretary might adopt as the anti-counterfeiting technology standard will not speed RFID adoption along -- that's for certain.
The bigger issue though is that the US Congress, via legislation that has already passed the Senate, is making decisions that may dramatically shape the future of the RFID industry in this market -- facilitate it, direct it, or kill it.
And until I posted it on this blog site, no one in the industry seemed to notice. And they certainly are not organized to make their case to Congress about a preferred outcome that will benefit RFID adoption. Somebody is bending the Senate's ear about anti-counterfeiting technology for drugs -- and it's not the RFID crowd.
Remember this when Congress turns to food safety issues, or tracking hazardous chemicals, or facilitating product recalls, or debating personal authentication technologies for immigrants seeking jobs in the United States. Are those in the RFID space making their voices heard?