Frequently Asked Questions
Why is an Ozempic compliance program necessary?
Healthcare is a highly regulated industry, and an effective compliance program helps to reduce the risk of regulatory noncompliance.
What are the elements of an Ozempic compliance program?
Compliance programs typically include seven elements, including written policies and procedures; employee training and education; monitoring; and remedial action.
Who is responsible for administering an Ozempic compliance program?
Depending on the size of the business, compliance oversight may be performed by a designed Chief Compliance Officer, Compliance Committee, or Board of Directors. In smaller businesses, a Compliance Manager or Business Lead may perform the function.
In December 2025, FDA issued a Warning Letter to Darmerica, an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) importer/manufacturer citing cGMP violations, distribution of retatrutide to 503A compounding pharmacies, and failure to list all drugs distributed into interstate commerce in violation of section 510(j) of the FD&C Act. The Warning Letter follows an FDA inspection and the company’s subsequent FDA Form 483 response. Because the Warning Letter is heavily redacted, the identity of the foreign API Manufacturer is not discernable (Darmerica is listed as the U.S. Agent).
Retatrutide cannot be compounded because it is currently an investigational drug. 503A compounders may only compound a drug that is FDA approved or is a component of an FDA approved drug, or has a USP/NF monograph (albeit not a dietary supplement monograph), or appears on the FDA 503A Bulks List or interim list.
Some alleged cGMP violations were directed at lack of Quality Unit oversight for API materials, repackaging, relabeling and related controls such as adequate stability data, failure to adequately investigate quality-related complaints and inadequate recall procedures. An important allegation was failure to ensure adequate pre-release testing of APIs. FDA alleges API was released prior to review of the Certificates of Analysis (COA) and authorization for release by the company’s third party testing laboratory. This is a violation as API samples to third party laboratories for testing must be received by the U.S. facility rather than sent directly from the foreign API manufacturer to ensure the sample is representative of the API in question and to account for transport conditions. Original labels from foreign API manufacturers must never be destroyed.
Robust Quality Unit oversight and supplier qualification procedures must be in place.
Robust Quality Unit oversight and supplier qualification procedures must be in place. FDA is now increasing foreign API manufacturer oversight via inspections, use of remote document requests and Import Alerts, placing foreign manufacturers on the so-called ‘Red List’ for failure to provide or provide access to documents or records under section 704(a) of the FD&C Act.
In the Warning Letter, FDA identified a number of GLPs and peptides ineligible for 503A compounding which the company distributed such as thymogen, elamipretide acetate (SS-31), FGL acetate (AKA GLP-1-FGL peptide acetate), cagrilinitide acetate and buserelin acetate.
Other notable issues included mislabeling by importation of drugs as ‘custom peptides’ rather than by peptide name, receipt of drugs from establishments not registered with FDA and mismatch between API and structured Product Labeling.
If you need an attorney who has the specific expertise in the compounding space with regard to supply chain and FDA (or Board of Pharmacy rules), contact us today.
MORE ARTICLES BY CATEGORY
OMIG Audit Defense New York: What the 2026 Work Plan Means for Providers
Every year, the New York Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) releases its Work Plan outlining enforcement priorities. The 2026 plan sends a clear signal that Medicaid providers in New York are entering a far more aggressive enforcement environment.
Read More >>PBM Member Denial Audit Findings: A Growing Threat to Pharmacies
Pharmacies undergoing a Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) audit are typically prepared to address inventory discrepancies and documentation issues. What many are not prepared for, however, is the increasing use of PBM member denial findings, allegations that a patient claims they did not receive and/or did not authorize the dispensing of a medication for which a claim was submitted.
Read More >>From Minor PBM Audit Finding to Major Liability: How Small Issues Trigger Big Consequences
Pharmacies often approach a PBM audit with the understanding that small discrepancies and modest recoupments are simply part of doing business. In today’s enforcement landscape, that assumption is no longer safe.
Read More >>HLA’s Latest PBM Win Highlights the Dangers of Inventory Discrepancies
Inventory discrepancies are one of the first things PBMs look for during an audit. Even minor clerical errors like entering the incorrect NDC or failing to return a medication to stock can snowball, creating major financial risks that could place your pharmacy in jeopardy.
Read More >>