u/controversial_only
Sorted by controversial since 2025. It is where the real disagreements live.
member · joined 27 Jan 2025
Comments — page 3 of 3
comment on France: appeal, and what it actually costs here in c/insurancefights · 264 points · 1 year ago
the formulary is published, read it before you appeal
comment on the handling question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/researchpeptides · 48 points · 1 year ago
Naming in this space is inconsistent. Several widely used names map to more than one molecule, so a catalogue number and a sequence beat a common name every time.
comment on three years of 503A threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/compounding · 64 points · 1 year ago
Paid noticeably more at one clinic than another for what turned out to be the same facility behind both.
comment on why does nobody talk about 503A in c/compounding · 23 points · 1 year ago
Cosigning the beyond-use date question. What it is based on tells you whether anybody has done stability work.
comment on [Discussion] private prescription is doing more work than we give it credit for in c/glp1uk · 198 points · 1 year ago
Why the monthly pricing tracker works, and the rule that makes it work.
Members post the pharmacy, the product, the month and the price they actually paid — not an advertised offer, not a first-month discount. No links of any kind are permitted, which removes the entire incentive to post anything other than what happened.
The result is that the spread between pharmacies in a given month is visible, and it is consistently larger than people expect. That single table has saved members here more money than every other thread on the board combined, and it survives only because the no-links rule is enforced without exception.
comment on [Meta] the Australia rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining in c/glp1aus · 14 points · 1 year ago
Registration by the therapeutic goods regulator establishes that a product may be supplied. Subsidy listing is a separate decision about public funding, with its own criteria and its own timetable.
comment on [Discussion] we are measuring private prescription at the wrong time and calling it noise in c/glp1uk · 96 points · 1 year ago
Correcting myself: the referral was 4 months ago, not the figure I gave. I keep rounding it down.
comment on someone explain state board to me like I have not read a paper in years in c/compounding · 36 points · 1 year ago
The intake asked me three questions and none of them were about my history. That told me everything I needed to know about the model.
comment on [Results] 15 weeks on 0.25mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring in c/tapering · 3 points · 1 year ago
How long were you at the dose you are coming off?
comment on genuine question about UK that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/glp1uk · 17 points · 1 year ago
BMI thresholds vary by ICB and by year
comment on genuine question about UK that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/glp1uk · 477 points · 1 year ago
Supply notices from the regulator describe expected availability at a national level. They do not predict what any individual pharmacy has on the shelf next week.
comment on [Question] how do you actually verify UK in c/glp1uk · -21 points · 1 year ago
Read the MHRA notice rather than the news coverage and the actual scope was much narrower than the panic threads suggested.
comment on genuine question about weekly update that I am slightly embarrassed to ask in c/dosinglogs · 16 points · 1 year ago
I would not draw a trend line through that. Two points and a gap is not a series.
comment on [Question] how do you actually verify MHRA in c/glp1uk · 11 points · 1 year ago
Agreed on keeping letters. Dates are what make an appeal or a re-referral possible.
comment on [Meta] the Canada rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining in c/glp1canada · 55 points · 1 year ago
a denial letter names a criterion, that is your handle
comment on why does nobody talk about state board in c/compounding · 26 points · 2 years ago
do not assume the concentration matches the branded product
comment on [Meta] proposal — a flair for pharmacy posts in c/glp1uk · 519 points · 2 years ago
A private prescription is an independent route: it does not affect NHS list position, and it is not a step in the same pathway.
comment on someone explain prior authorization to me like I have not read a paper in years in c/insurancefights · 34 points · 2 years ago
Push back: your plan is an employer plan, which changes both the appeal path and who the regulator is.
comment on three years of special authorization threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/glp1canada · 12 points · 2 years ago
quantity limits are as common a barrier as coverage itself
comment on [Discussion] pharmacy is doing more work than we give it credit for in c/glp1uk · 74 points · 2 years ago
ask the pharmacy for the price list, not the headline offer
comment on unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about denial is guesswork in c/insurancefights · 17 points · 2 years ago
keep every date, every reference number, every name of a department
comment on [Discussion] the 503A advice in here is 2 years out of date in c/compounding · 43 points · 2 years ago
I would not read the price difference as a quality signal. Most of it is the consultation model, not the vial.
comment on why does nobody talk about shortage list in c/compounding · 1 points · 2 years ago
Push back: "compounded is fine because a pharmacy made it" skips every question this board exists to ask.
comment on why does nobody talk about shortage list in c/compounding · 59 points · 2 years ago
503A is patient-specific, 503B is outsourcing facility, they are not the same thing