u/honest_syringe19

positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard

external review is the appeal after insurance says no

Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.

Do you have an import allowance in your jurisdiction?

seizure and reship are different outcomes

No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.

external review is the appeal after insurance says no

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

Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.

Small correction: the trial was 24 weeks, not 9. Does not change your point but people will quote it.

Did you get step therapy or outright denial?

Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.

step therapy documentation is the weapon, use it

Germany plan: step therapy required 18 medications first. Did them all, got approval. The order matters.

Yeah, the lane data is more useful than single reports.

I am going to push back on this slightly.

Disagree on that part. 96.8% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.

origin to destination, carrier, transit variance

the 48 week mark is where it gets interesting

the 70 week mark is where it gets interesting