The shadow of economic downturn has decreased the attention and buzz around some previously hot topics: One of those areas is the subject of counterfeit drugs in pharmaceutical industry.

Supply and Demand Chain Executive has recently published a piece covering this area highlighting the fact that preventive plans in medicine supply chain management is still important. The author's prediction is that,
one year after the blood thinner drug Heparin was recalled due to the presence of a tainted ingredient, we will see another incident like this before the year 2010. As an example, even in the U.S. where the supply chain system is relatively safe, the FDA has estimated that at least 81 Americans died and hundreds more became sick from severe allergic reactions to the tainted ingredient.

The author of the piece recommends pharma companies to take a proactive approach and start securing their supply chains more than ever without waiting for regulations. He mentions the case of Novis Pharmaceuticals, a leading distributor of biotherapeutic products to healthcare providers, which in September 2007, Novis launched the initial Program phase to strengthen product security using electronic pedigrees for all the products it handles, starting with high-risk drugs like Heparin and ones that provide its customers the most value. Product serialization was also a key part of the equation for Novis, yet the industry wasn't ready to take this next step en masse.

With an official launch of its NOVIS RxID program slated for mid-2009, Novis will become one of the leaders in demonstrating that protecting patient safety can be good business if you keep your eye on your key strategic imperatives, be they product integrity, operational efficiency, customer service, or other.

However, in this tough time when cash is the king and companies are forced to save money and reduce costs, is going for expensive solutions like Novis is the right strategy? Or the companies should focus on minimum requirements imposed by governments and legislation organizations and postpone more investment to the future. What do you think? (I myslef would go for the second approach).