am I the only one who found shortage list harder than the injections
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud.
The advice on compounding in this community changed substantially around the start of last year, and nobody went back and updated the older posts. So depending on which thread the search engine hands you, you get two contradictory answers with the same confidence.
I have listed what I think the current consensus is below. Correct me — that is the point of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
503B compounding is different from 503A, different rules, different legality
regulatory claims need a citation to the actual rule, not interpretation
What is the actual shortage list status right now?
The telehealth + compounding combo cost state board plus 20% markup. Not cheap but covered by insurance depending on state.
API source questions are on-topic and compounders dodging them is newsworthy
telehealth prescriber models exist, pricing differs by state
the 503A/503B distinction is load-bearing, do not blur it
This is correct. The shortage list does expire and the rules change.
I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.
503B compounding is different from 503A, different rules, different legality
503B compounding is different from 503A, different rules, different legality
Adding to this: shortage list is doing more work than the comment implies.
Which state? Rules vary.
Yeah, 503A and 503B are different regulatory animals.
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
the shortage list is temporary, it ends and compounding becomes illegal again
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
regulatory claims need a citation to the actual rule, not interpretation
Strongly agree. API source transparency matters.
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with 503B, not with what you concluded.
- 1Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.10 comments in this branch · started by u/quiet_moderator
- 2I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry…6 comments in this branch · started by u/cold_chromatogram31