u/niels_salinas

one line a week beats a spreadsheet you abandon

Cosigning on missed weeks. Leaving them blank makes the whole series misleading.

Attribution requires that one thing change at a time. A log with dose, training and intake all moving in the same fortnight cannot assign anything to any of them.

check the trial population before quoting a result at somebody

A log is a record of what you did. It is not a protocol, and posting one as a schedule for other members is a different thing that this board does not do.

A denial letter is required to state a reason and to reference the criterion applied. That reference is the handle: request the clinical policy document by its identifier and answer it point by point.

a missed week is data, write it down

Yes — quoting their own policy bulletin back at them is far more effective than arguing in general terms.

retrospective logs drift, contemporaneous ones do not

Small fix — external review is independent of the plan. The second-level internal appeal is not.

A log is only interpretable if the conditions are consistent. Same day, same time, same state, same scale — otherwise you are recording measurement variability rather than change.

write the concentration in the log too

Is the concentration recorded anywhere in the log?

Same conditions each time for the weigh-in?

Not convinced. That is a formulary exclusion rather than a prior authorisation denial, and the route to challenge it is different.

Postprandial excursions typically respond earlier than fasting glucose, so the sequence people observe is not a sign that something is not working.

Careful — posting a log as a schedule for other people to follow is not what this board is for.

Disagreeing with this bit: daily weighing gives you noise and costs you something.

appeal in writing even when they say a call is enough

Not convinced by the retrospective reconstruction. Memory smooths things and the smoothing is systematic.

waist monthly, weight weekly, notes whenever

A denial letter is required to state a reason and to reference the criterion applied. That reference is the handle: request the clinical policy document by its identifier and answer it point by point.

postprandial excursions are where most of the improvement shows up first

Panicked over a first-day sensor reading and rebuilt my week around it. It was the sensor.

Wrote the concentration into the log as well as on the vial. Have referred back to it more than once.

Disagreeing with this line: that endpoint is from the obesity programme and does not answer the question.

Agreed, and the glucose-dependence point is the reason the risk profile reads the way it does.

New plan year, entirely new criteria, and the denial that had been immovable in the autumn simply did not apply in January.

Correction: that is a formulary exclusion, not a prior authorisation denial. Different form, different route, different deadline.