My pharmacy stopped supplying with three weeks notice and a letter that explained nothing, so I went and read the statute.
Two things anyone can check: a state licence number for a 503A, and an FDA outsourcing-facility registration for a 503B. Both are publicly searchable, and a pharmacy unwilling to give you either has answered the question.
So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: why a shortage listing created a legal pathway at all, since a shortage is a supply fact rather than a permission.
Not looking for reassurance. Looking for the part I have got wrong.
Short answer first, then the reasoning. Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists. For 503B the shortage clause was the only route to these molecules, so that route shut completely. A 503A pharmacy can still argue a doorway via "component of an approved drug" — but only for the substance in the form present in the approved product, which is exactly where the base-versus-salt argument lives, and it does nothing about the copy restriction, which came back into force on resolution.
That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.
BenResearch_OR said:Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.
Agreed, and the enforcement dates were staggered by category — 503A first, 503B a few weeks later — because outsourcing facilities have manufactured inventory and clinic contracts to unwind while a 503A makes to order.
Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesGL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer
Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemRickReta_CO said:My pharmacy stopped supplying with three weeks notice and a letter that explained nothing, so I went and read the statute.
Same position here, arrived at the long way round. The shortage clause is the answer to the second question and it is a subtraction rather than an addition. Both exemptions forbid compounding something that is essentially a copy of a commercially available approved product. A product FDA has listed as in shortage is not treated as commercially available, so listing removed the objection that otherwise blocked compounding. It never created a permission; it withdrew a prohibition, which is why it evaporated the moment the supply fact changed.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.
FDA inspection results for compounding pharmacies selling compounded supply: you can look up any 503B facility's FDA inspection history on the FDA website.
Check for: Form 483 observations (violations), warning letters, and recall history. A clean inspection record is a strong indicator of quality. My pharmacy has had 0 Form 483 observations in their last 4 inspections.
This is public information. Use it. Link: fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations