In the past month, I've participated in a number of discussions with individuals representing organizations across the healthcare supply chain. Needless to say, we don't always agree.
One example occurred in the most recent GS1 US workgroup meeting. We were attempting to compile our comments for a submission to the FDA on the proposed UDI rule. GS1 US represents both hospitals and manufacturers at the same time. The hospital groups asked for a comment to reduce the time allotted for the implementation of the rule. On the other side, manufacturers were asking for more time because of the complexity of the rule. Both sides passionately believed that they were right.
On the one hand, there is a need for the data. It is difficult to overstate how hard it is to track individual items without a standardized method to account for them in the stream. On the other hand, the hospitals have no idea how difficult it is to gather information, verify its accuracy, and then to report on that information to the FDA while constantly under the threat of an audit that could literally shut down your business.
At the end of the session, we all agreed that it would be counterproductive to submit a comment that contradicted itself. Since we could not agree on the comment, each side was asked to work within their own organizations to submit that particular comment on that aspect of the rule.
While we didn't come to consensus, the episode did highlight the depth of passion on both sides. It also helped us understand that this vital process will not be implemented easily.
I find that I enjoy discussing these types of issues in depth with others. Debating the issue with others who challenge our thinking really helps to strengthen our own arguments in support of our ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment