Foresight? Due Diligence?
This is no slight occurrence. It is seriously impressive that a federal government agency in contracting with a sole generic pharmaceutical company to produce fundamental injectable pain killers and anesthetics commonly used on a daily basis by Canadian hospitals, would have no guarantees in place. No need for the manufacturer to alert HealthPro Canada when problems arise. No alternate arrangements made for other sourcing.
No obligation seen on the part of the pharmaceutical firm for whose production so much depends upon for the smooth operation of the country's operating rooms and surgical procedures, to ensure that the product is delivered as required. That's pretty slovenly management. On the part of the pharmaceutical manufacturer and on the part of the federal authority which contracted with it to produce medications in bulk for 255 hospitals and health authorities country-wide.
"There's very little excess capacity to produce pharmaceuticals across the world. It's only by exception that you will find excess stock somewhere in the world, waiting to be purchased", according to HealthPro's clinical director of pharmacy services. What is the point, first off, of sole-source contracting, with no redundancy guarantees? No back up source in case of emergencies.
Pharmaceutical products are fungibles, other producers can be contracted with, to equip themselves to produce these common and required drugs. They stand to gain by it, hugely, through a secure source of ongoing uptake of the product. Drugs represent the second-highest cost to the universal health care system in the country. They are expensive to produce, but there is a ready market for it, particularly through this kind of mass-production contracting.
Doesn't it make sense for a pharmaceutical firm to focus its attention on its largest consumer, the federal government, which requires it to provide needed drugs to the country's hospitals on an ongoing, continual basis? Obviously, Sandoz aspires to be represented in the American marketplace as well, challenging U.S. drugmakers in a hugely remunerative market.
Which is the sole reason that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration called upon it to improve its quality control procedures in Boucherville, Quebec. It does, of course, beg the question why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would have higher standards to ensure a low level of contamination in the production of drugs than HealthPro Canada, as well, doesn't it?
One might think that a contract of that dimensions would carry a lot of weight; to produce a continual supply of medications and pharmaceuticals for Canada's hospitals represents a huge outlay of financial security for any drug manufacturer. Under those circumstances would it not make sense to find a manufacturer that would be alert to the need to focus on the Canadian market exclusively?
And with the advantage that a huge contract like HealthPro Canada offers, tasked to ensure a steady supply of pharmaceuticals for Canada's hospitals, wouldn't it make sound administrative sense to ensure that a back-up is always present, by issuing a split contract, engaging two producers, not merely one?
After all, the fire that Sandoz Canada experienced setting back its production in addition to the set-backs related to the installing of new, updated production facilities, could happen anywhere at any time, interrupting production. Isn't it prudent to ensure that these interruptions do not affect all sources of supply?
No obligation seen on the part of the pharmaceutical firm for whose production so much depends upon for the smooth operation of the country's operating rooms and surgical procedures, to ensure that the product is delivered as required. That's pretty slovenly management. On the part of the pharmaceutical manufacturer and on the part of the federal authority which contracted with it to produce medications in bulk for 255 hospitals and health authorities country-wide.
"There's very little excess capacity to produce pharmaceuticals across the world. It's only by exception that you will find excess stock somewhere in the world, waiting to be purchased", according to HealthPro's clinical director of pharmacy services. What is the point, first off, of sole-source contracting, with no redundancy guarantees? No back up source in case of emergencies.
Pharmaceutical products are fungibles, other producers can be contracted with, to equip themselves to produce these common and required drugs. They stand to gain by it, hugely, through a secure source of ongoing uptake of the product. Drugs represent the second-highest cost to the universal health care system in the country. They are expensive to produce, but there is a ready market for it, particularly through this kind of mass-production contracting.
Doesn't it make sense for a pharmaceutical firm to focus its attention on its largest consumer, the federal government, which requires it to provide needed drugs to the country's hospitals on an ongoing, continual basis? Obviously, Sandoz aspires to be represented in the American marketplace as well, challenging U.S. drugmakers in a hugely remunerative market.
Which is the sole reason that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration called upon it to improve its quality control procedures in Boucherville, Quebec. It does, of course, beg the question why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would have higher standards to ensure a low level of contamination in the production of drugs than HealthPro Canada, as well, doesn't it?
One might think that a contract of that dimensions would carry a lot of weight; to produce a continual supply of medications and pharmaceuticals for Canada's hospitals represents a huge outlay of financial security for any drug manufacturer. Under those circumstances would it not make sense to find a manufacturer that would be alert to the need to focus on the Canadian market exclusively?
And with the advantage that a huge contract like HealthPro Canada offers, tasked to ensure a steady supply of pharmaceuticals for Canada's hospitals, wouldn't it make sound administrative sense to ensure that a back-up is always present, by issuing a split contract, engaging two producers, not merely one?
After all, the fire that Sandoz Canada experienced setting back its production in addition to the set-backs related to the installing of new, updated production facilities, could happen anywhere at any time, interrupting production. Isn't it prudent to ensure that these interruptions do not affect all sources of supply?
Labels: Government of Canada, Health
posted by Pieface | 7:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home