tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28450497.post4671710109414165070..comments2008-09-03T17:04:20.306-04:00Adam J. Fein, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15774296048321605590afein@pembrokeconsulting.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28450497.post-76715658902100645912008-09-03T16:58:00.000-04:002008-09-03T16:58:00.000-04:00Reason why they moved from compliance to securing the supply chain (improve visibility) is because they need to be able to provide a ROI to the business.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28450497.post-78637050673072034272008-09-03T13:30:00.000-04:002008-09-03T13:30:00.000-04:00One comment I can't beleive no one has made. What about the major companies that have embraced this, have moved off of a compliance strategy and focused on patient safety and a secure supply chain strategy.<BR/>What about the countless number of people hours and dollars invested to meet the original CabOP deadline. CaBOP - sorry guys we were only kidding. Thanks for stepping up, spending your companies money, investing you time, caring about our not so noble cause - CABOP was only kidding. See you folks in 2015 - bring your pcket books and precisous time again or are we only kidding CABOP!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28450497.post-86696515756826645242008-09-03T10:01:44.060-04:002008-09-03T10:01:44.060-04:00Brian -- <BR/><BR/>California's budget deficit should make it more likely for SB 1307 to pass. As I noted earlier this tear, the CA Board of Pharmacy has a limited budget ($10 million) and had no personnel to implement or enforce the 2009 deadline prior to the delay to 2011. Moving the deadline to 2015 allows money to be allocated in a future budget -- and perhaps allows a federal solution to emerge that would take the pressure off CA.<BR/><BR/>AdamAdam J. Feinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15774296048321605590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28450497.post-49593755154062732202008-09-02T11:51:09.577-04:002008-09-02T11:51:09.577-04:00man, I missed you! I guess this is the last Spinal Tap post if the deadline won't be going to 11. Too bad for us!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28450497.post-6424271881986011962008-09-02T09:23:00.000-04:002008-09-02T09:23:00.000-04:00Hi Adam - Re: Ridley-Thomas bill passing in California.<BR/><BR/>As I write this today (9/2), I believe this bill is not yet law - pending some action (or long enough inaction) by the Governor. Like many large states, California faces a serious budget deficit - the resolution of which creates some uncertainty on what will happen with this. Right now, manufacturers are in a tough position as the 1/1/2011 date is still on the books.<BR/><BR/>As an eventual end result, it would be much easier to comply with one national standard and compliance schedule rather than a myriad of state regulations.<BR/><BR/>Thanks once again for following this critical - and extremely costly - issue. Is there any current news on what is happening with other state laws?Brianwww.omedia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28450497.post-50088989686178187292008-09-02T09:19:00.000-04:002008-09-02T09:19:00.000-04:00So Adam - how does this play out against HR 5839? If pre-emption moves forward, arent we back in the 2011 boat for high risk products?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com