Covid-19 Disrupts Supply Chains of Medicines Revealing Yet Another Threat to Our National Security

This is the fifth in a series of blog posts about judicial systems’ response to the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 is its technical name; Covid-19 is the disease it causes) outbreak and the justice systems’ active participation in a whole-of-society-approach (WOSA) to national security and safety threats such as Covid-19.

The severity of the Covid-19 outbreak is revealing yet another national security threat to those of which we today are well aware: the disruption of the supply chains of lifesaving drugs produced by Chinese companies. China is the primary source of crucial medical drugs. If this supply is in jeopardy, these drugs would stop reaching Americans.

In a February 24 letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri warned:

The novel coronavirus in China highlights severe, longstanding, and unresolved vulnerabilities in our capacity to produce lifesaving pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices… This is unacceptable… [The] recent outbreak of novel coronavirus has threatened the domestic supply of some 150 prescription drugs, including antibiotics, generics, and branded drugs. Some of these drugs do not have alternatives on the market. The degree to which some of our own manufacturers rely on China to produce lifesaving and life-sustaining medications is inexcusable. It is becoming clear to me that both oversight hearings and additional legislation are necessary to determine the extent of our reliance on Chinese production and protect our medical product supply chain. 

As reported yesterday by Thomas Sullivan, Editor of Policy and Medicine, similar congressional letters echoing Senator Hawley’s warning have been sent to the FDA by Senators Marco Rubio, Chris Murphy, Robert Menendez, and Representative Bill Pascrell. On February 27, the FDA stated that it is aware of a drug shortage related to an active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) manufacturer affected by the spreading virus. However, the FDA stated that it could not disclose which drug is in shortage because of confidentiality regulations.  Generally speaking, noted Sullivan, under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, once a drug shortage has been identified, it must go on a drug shortage list. However, the legislation allows the FDA to use its discretion in not making certain information public if the agency finds that disclosing the shortage may adversely affect public health.

Gerald F. Seib, writing in yesterday’s Washington Post “Capital Journal,” says that Covid-19 is altering our views and definitions of a national security threat.  He suggests that American companies need to diversify supply chains away from China. “For years, national security professionals have been telling one another that, in the  post-Cold War world, with a globally connected economy, nontraditional threats such as cyberattacks, biological warfare, and global epidemics should be getting more attention,” he writes.

Copyright CourtMetrics 2020. All rights reserved.

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

The “What Ifs” Along the Road in the Quest of a Justice Index

What if we could draw an indicator of the “health” of the justice systems throughout the United States – a Justice Index - from readily available public data that is impartial, reliable, objective and comparable, let’s say the amount of time that criminal defendants spend in custody without a trial, or even without any access to legal or justice services? Or the bail amounts imposed on misdemeanor defendants?   This kind of a measure would not be perfect – no measure is – but it would be something, better than nothing. It would address questions of fairness and efficient use of public resources. That is, a criminal defendant languishing in jail awaiting trial suffers, at the least, a delay in justice. He or she is also occupying a jail bed and spending taxpayers’ money. What if we then join this measure with another meaningful indicator of the health of our justice systems in counties and states, let’s say the degree to which jurisdictions prosecute domestic violence cases.
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more