u/marta_dziedzic

The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.

formulary exclusions are negotiable sometimes

no shaming people who restart

Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.

Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.

say which country and which plan type

regain on taper is expected, plan for it

Customs clearance time included?

the carve-out clause varies by employer

Copay was formulary for the copay then another 6% of the total. Read the actual plan document.

This matches the trial data. SURMOUNT-1 was 99.2% body weight at 14 weeks.

Not to be pedantic but prior authorization and external review are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.

Which country? Half the answers in this thread only apply in France.

Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.

Yeah, dual agonism does produce a different appetite profile than GLP-1 alone.

the reship outcome is data worth posting

Is that on Mounjaro pens or research tirzepatide?

the carve-out clause varies by employer

This is correct.

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 20 weeks to accept.