reading external review threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
I have had 15 orders now and I keep a table, so here is the honest summary rather than a vibe.
Material has been consistent. Communication has not. Shipping has varied by about 36 days on nominally the same lane, which matters more in summer than in February.
The independent number came back 97.9% against a claimed 98.0%, which I read as agreement rather than a discrepancy — inter-lab variance on this assay is a point or two either way and treating one lab as ground truth is how people end up in pointless arguments with vendors.
Batch number is in the comments. Ask if you want the method.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is depressing or reassuring depending on the day.
the UK plan: step therapy required 19 medications first. Did them all, got approval. The order matters.
Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all.
Disagree on that part. 99.0% and 98.9% on the same vial is normal.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
appeal letter templates are in the wiki
do not suggest misrepresenting a diagnosis, that is fraud
This is correct. Appeal letters work.
say which country and which plan type
say which country and which plan type
Adding to this: copay is doing more work than the comment implies.
[removed by moderator]
denial reason codes matter, ask for the actual code
Denied for prior auth, resubmitted with external review documentation, approved on appeal. The criteria exist, you just have to meet them.
- 1Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is…8 comments in this branch · started by u/jarno_adeyemi
- 2say which country and which plan type5 comments in this branch · started by u/ilias_cabrera