am I the only one who found formulary harder than the injections
external review. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/meta is downstream of it. Titration speed, muscle cramps, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort external review out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 2 months. My hs-CRP was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
appeal letter templates are in the wiki
External review overturned the denial. Took 9 weeks but the process exists.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
formulary exclusions are negotiable sometimes
resubmission after denial requires new documentation
Not to be pedantic but appeal and formulary are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Not to be pedantic but appeal and formulary are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 45 weeks to accept.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
I am going to push back on this slightly.
Disagree on that part. 96.8% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
Small correction: the trial was 15 weeks, not 31. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
formulary exclusions are negotiable sometimes
resubmission after denial requires new documentation
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
Strongly agree. Step therapy is predictable if you have the criteria.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
Adding to this: denial is doing more work than the comment implies.
do not suggest misrepresenting a diagnosis, that is fraud
say which country and which plan type
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
Mechanistically the bit that matters is denial. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
Mechanistically the bit that matters is denial.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the carve-out clause varies by employer
appeal letter templates are in the wiki
redact member ids and group numbers from every screenshot
- 1This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please…9 comments in this branch · started by u/appeal_letter_al
- 2The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a…6 comments in this branch · started by u/whois_wanda