Revisiting Florida’s Plan to Import Drugs from Canada

An FDA-Approved Plan with Major Implications

Earlier this year, the FDA authorized Florida’s proposal to import select drugs from Canada under section 804 of the FD&C Act. The law allows companies to import prescription drugs in bulk if doing so saves Americans money and doesn’t put the health and safety of Americans at risk.

According to the office of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, the proposal will save the state an estimated $180 million annually. More specifically, this program will reduce the price the state pays for medications used by certain groups, including older populations, foster children, and incarcerated individuals. Florida will begin with importing small cases of chronic medication, including those treating HIV/AIDS, mental illness, prostate cancer, and urea cycle disorder.

The FDA has emphasized that for Canadian drugs to be imported into the US, Canadian partners and American companies receiving them must adhere to additional security requirements. These include specifying the drugs they plan on importing, verifying drug authenticity and compliance with FDA-approved specifications, and relabeling these drugs in accordance with FDA policy.

Not Everyone Sees the Potential Benefits 

However, despite the cost-saving claims from Florida as well as the FDA’s approval of the change, many question the decision and the proposed benefits. Many experts believe this policy change will not solve the high-price issue of prescription drugs in the US. Critics argue the Canadian drug supply is too small, which means the change will not only have a minor impact on price reduction in the US, but could lead to major shortages throughout Canada. Four days after the policy change, the Canadian Government released the following statement:

“The Government of Canada is taking all necessary action to safeguard the drug supply and ensure Canadians have access to the prescription drugs they need and has been clear in its position: bulk importation will not provide an effective solution to the problem of high drug prices in the US.”

Accordingly, prominent members within the pharmaceutical industry have counteracted against the ruling; Stephen Ubl, President and CEO of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), believes the ruling has detrimental implications on American pharmaceutical supply chains. “The importation of unapproved medicines, whether from Canada or elsewhere in the world, poses a serious danger to public health,” Ubl claimed following the approval.

What Does this Mean for Compliance?

As to how these Canadian imports will comply with DSCSA Requirements, in particular Enhanced Drug Distribution Requirements, remains questionable. With Enhanced Drug Distribution Requirements delayed for connected trading partners in the US, will Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers be expected to fully comply with DSCSA in November or will they be eligible for additional time for completion?

Is anyone aware of any Canadian pharmaceutical importation plans or activity since the policy change took effect in early January 2024?  Have Floridians spent $50 million implementing the plan? If yes, how did that ‘investment’ benefit American patients? Since more states may adopt a similar policy in the future, understanding fiscal costs and benefits is essential.

Finally, though Canadian imports must meet additional drug security requirements, will counterfeiters see this policy change as a money-making opportunity? Considering the numerous instances of domestic counterfeiting, we can’t count this out as a possibility.

Beware of Counterfeit Ozempic, says FDA

Authentic Ozempic needle side by side with a fraudulent needle

Counterfeiting: A Major Issue with Drastic Consequences

On October 2nd, the FDA released an article highlighting the risk of unapproved weight loss drugs, including semgalutide and tirzepatide. These drugs pose a major risk to patients due to their lack of quality assurance. 

Illegally marketed versions of these drugs have infiltrated pharmaceutical supply chains, most notably, Ozempic. Counterfeit versions of the drug have been marketed as authentic, but could contain too much, too little, no active ingredient, or harmful ingredients. These illegal drugs pose a risk to consumers; in fact, according to a December 2023 report, 2 people died and three people were hospitalized after consuming counterfeit Ozempic.

Another DSCSA Delay

The FDA October 9th that they were delaying implementation of Enhanced Drug Distribution Security requirements, along with other requirements of section 582(g) of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act. This compliance extension would only be for trading partners who have made a documented attempt to complete data connections with immediate trading partners, or those who are already doing so. 

The FDA has emphasized the decision came from a concern over potential drug supply shortages. In the release, the FDA referenced trading partners’ struggles “resolving issues involving missing or erroneous data in electronic DSCSA transaction information and transaction statements” without delaying product distribution (including those in shortage) downstream. 

The concern for preventing supply shortages downstream is real. Preventing shortages can help minimize the risk of counterfeit products, given how shortages lead to higher rates of counterfeits as consumers are willing to pay higher prices for goods. However, what’s also important to consider is the reason behind creating Enhanced Drug Distribution Security (EDDS) requirements in the first place. 

Counterfeit Crisis: DSCSA’s Role

The Enhanced Drug Distribution Security requirements under the DSCSA were created for instances like this. Counterfeiters have become increasingly deceitful in their craft: packages with authentic lot numbers and detailed inventory trails make it very difficult to determine the legitimacy of drugs. Sight alone is simply not enough to authenticate legitimate drugs from counterfeits, especially for end consumers—just look at the image above!

Enhanced Drug Distribution Security requirements drastically reduce this risk, mandating product-level traceability and interoperability. Flagging down counterfeit Ozempic is much easier to do with EDDS requirements in place; the FDA delaying these requirements again could pose risks similar to what we’ve seen with Ozempic. 

While it’s essential to acknowledge the FDA’s commitment to preventing drug shortages, delaying EDDS requirements may bring about its own consequences.

DSCSA Exemptions from Section 582 and Other Requirements of the FD&C Act for Certain Trading Partners

Published October 10th, 2024

The FDA announced on October 9th that they are granting eligible pharmaceutical trading partners exemptions from Enhanced Drug Distribution Security (EDDS) requirements of the FD&C Act. Eligible trading partners include those who have initiated systems and processes and successfully completed data connections with immediate trading partners, or those who have initiated processes (with documentation) to establish data connections, but were unable to fully complete them with all of their immediate trading partners, by November 27th, 2024.

Specifically, eligible trading partners will be exempt from key portions of Section 582 of the FD&C Act. These exemptions and their respective sections of the FD&C include:

  • Enhanced drug distribution requirements– section 582(g)(1)
  • Verification requirements for wholesale distributors concerning saleable returned product– section 582(c)(4)(D)*
  • Verification requirements for dispensers concerning illegitimate or suspect product– sections 582(d)(4)(A)(ii)(II) and (d)(4)(B)(iii)**

*Eligible wholesale distributors are still obligated to meet all other verification requirements of section 582(c)(4) of the FD&C Act, including package-level product verification to investigate suspect/illegitimate product.

**Eligible dispensers are still obligated to meet all other verification requirements of section 582(d)(4) of the FD&C Act, including package-level product verification to investigate suspect/illegitimate product.

The FDA has implemented these exemptions based on pharmaceutical trading partner feedback. Particularly, trading partners have described challenges resolving issues related to missing or erroneous data in electronic DSCSA transactions, without delaying drug movement downstream. This, partners have argued, could contribute to drug shortages and prevent pharmacies and patients from receiving the drugs they need.

These exemptions vary in length based on trading partner type:

  • Manufacturers and Repackagers: May 27, 2025
  • Wholesale Distributors: August 27, 2025
  • Dispensers with 26 or more full-time employees: November 27, 2025

It will be interesting to see how these exceptions are enforced, and how eligible trading partners will be identified:

  1. What “documentation of evidence to establish data connections” will make a trading partner exempt?
  2. How will the FDA ask for this “documentation”, and how will they check for progress?
  3. What will this mean for those who haven’t made efforts to comply?

HDA DSCSA Guidance

Following the recent HDA Traceability Seminar between August 26th-28th, I had the opportunity to lead a conversation amongst dozens of pharmaceutical partners and solution providers; we discussed various important topics related to the DSCSA, from Waiver, Exception, and Exemptions, to Verification Routing Services, and more. Emphasizing the importance of transparency and open conversation, I thought I’d highlight some important insights.  

It’s All About the Data

The FDA understands there are conflicts in terms of data quality and integrity. Downstream integrity is impossible without manufacturers ensuring their data and products align with updated standards. The FDA has stressed the importance of pharmaceutical partners, particularly manufacturers, meeting these standards by the end of the stabilization period (next month). However, for certain exceptions, including product/no data, WEEs must be considered.  

Waivers, Exceptions, Exemptions

Since mid-June, there have been over 324 requests for package-level requirements WEEs, with more likely to be submitted as we approach the deadline. Dispensers are most frequently requesting WEEs, followed by wholesalers, manufacturers, and repackages. The issue many partners are experiencing is that downstream partners cannot get accurate data from suppliers without upstream partners providing it to them efficiently. The FDA believes it is adequately staffed to handle WEEs, and if they find consistent requests for handling WEE scenarios, they will announce how partners should handle them.  

Easier Said than Done

Navigating the complexities of Waivers, Exceptions, and Exemptions is oftentimes easier said than done. While the FDA has provided various recommendations for handling tricky exceptions, oftentimes, partners still find themselves facing challenges in practice.  

VRS on the Rise

VRS is gaining popularity as an effective means to ensure interoperability between supply chain partners, helping pharmaceutical partners conform to product identification and authorization requirements under the DSCSA. Apart from saleable returns for pharmaceutical partners, VRS can provide additional verification in medical emergencies, though it’s not intended to bypass EPCIS verification.  

If you have any questions about these insights, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

7 Things to Know About DSCSA Enhanced Drug Distribution Security Requirements

The Image introduces what the article will discuss, the 7 key things you need to know about enhanced drug distribution security as required by the Drug Supply Chain Security Act

The DSCSA: A Phased Approach to Implementation

Published October 10th, 2024

Over a decade ago, the FDA established the Drug Supply Chain Security Act to help protect consumers from potentially counterfeit, stolen, contaminated, or otherwise harmful prescription drugs as they’re distributed throughout the United States. The legislation focuses on establishing procedures for achieving interoperable, electronic product tracing at the package level, improving detection and removal of potentially dangerous drugs from supply chains, and providing a licensing system for wholesale drug distributors and 3PLs. 

The legislation mapped out a 10-year phased timeline, beginning with Product Tracing, followed by Verification, Authorized Trading Partner Establishment, Product Identifier Implementation and Verification, and finally, Enhanced Drug Distribution Security requirements (EDDS). EDDS requirements were supposed to go into effect on November 27th, 2023. However, in August of the same year, the FDA announced a stabilization period, delaying enforcement until a year after the original deadline. This stabilization period provides trading partners additional time to “build and validate interoperable systems and processes, manage products and data, and ensure continuity of the supply chain and product availability to patients.” Despite requests from various trading partners and organizations, the FDA has indicated frequently that it will not extend the stabilization period any further. 

7 Things to Know About EDDS Requirements

With the stabilization period ending in November, what exactly are the EDDS requirements trading partners must adhere to? Here are 7 things you need to know about Enhanced Drug Distribution Security requirements: 

  1. Product Identifiers are required at the package level. Each Product Identifier must contain a Standardized Numerical Identifier (Serialized GTIN), a Lot Number, an Expiration Date, and human-readable and machine-readable data carriers. 
  2. Systems must be in place to ensure electronic, interoperable-traceability. This is enabled by capturing “who buys what from whom” in Drug Transaction Records (DTRs), and assuring these records meet DSCSA regulations and industry application standards. 
  3. DTRs must be exchanged at each level of ownership as drugs make their way across the supply chain. Tracing information must be provided at the individual serialized level. Capturing and exchanging information at this level requires a common information framework; this “information framework” captures what happens in the physical world, and is essentially an information-encoded representation of packing and shipping events. EPCIS is the only FDA-recommended standard to support and enable electronic traceability. 
  4. Systems need to securely exchange, capture, and maintain the electronic DTR accurately, efficiently, and consistently among trading partners. Processes and systems need to be more accountable, transparent, and responsive to regulatory oversight. 
  5. Trading partners shall reconcile transactions; they must ensure product tracing information received electronically (Transaction Record) accurately reflects the packages of product the purchasing trading partner physically received (digital representation of the physical shipment). 
  6. Reporting and communication are necessary for true, accurate, and complete traceability. Errors and discrepancies need to be identified, communicated, and resolved within three business days. For recalls and suspect products, the DTR must be promptly generated upon request by the FDA. Additionally, partners must allow saleable returns only if they can be associated with the initial DTR. 
  7. The consequences of non-compliance are seismic, both at the business and personal levels. As we’ve already seen with counterfeit Ozempic, enhanced drug distribution security procedures can save lives. Punishments for non-compliance include seizure of goods, loss of license, civil and criminal violations, and imprisonment. 

It’s Time to Take Action

With the final phase of the DSCSA coming November 27th, ensuring you are prepared for enforcement is essential.  

See how Gateway Checker’s solutions can help you comply with updated guidelines, or contact our team with any questions.