reimbursement — 17 things I got wrong before I got it right
The title is the argument: reimbursement — 17 things I got wrong before I got it right. Here is the rest of it. Nothing here is medical or legal advice, and eligibility questions have national answers that a pharmacist where you live can give you in minutes. Supply notices are issued nationally. A notice in one…
The structure that makes this board make sense, once.
Marketing authorisation for these products is granted centrally, which is why the same product exists across the union. Everything after that — whether it is reimbursed, on what criteria, at what price, in what pack size, dispensed under what margin rules — is decided nationally.
So "is it covered" has twenty-seven answers, "what does it cost" has twenty-seven answers plus within-country variation, and only "is it authorised" has one. Almost every argument on this board is two people answering different questions from different countries, both correctly.
Small fix — those two prices are for different pack sizes, which accounts for most of the gap.
What pack size is that price for?
What does the local patient information leaflet say?
Correction: that is the authorisation position, and the question was about reimbursement. Different bodies, different answers.
That shortage notice was national and does not apply where the question is coming from.
Right, and a shortage notice in one country tells you very little about the next one along.
Is this a cross-border question or a domestic one?