copay: what the trials say vs what this community says
Right, the formulary question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 11 data points over 36 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 33, not week 82. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
external review is the appeal after insurance says no
copay is separate from coverage
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
the carve-out clause varies by employer
Small correction: the trial was 13 weeks, not 24. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
say which country and which plan type
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
appeal letter templates are in the wiki
Strongly agree. Step therapy is predictable if you have the criteria.
- 1Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be…6 comments in this branch · started by u/marta_marchand
- 2Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next…5 comments in this branch · started by u/formulary_fighter