u/solene_eriksen

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

public coverage status differs

Genuine question — what concentration were you at?

The 503A pharmacy I used lost their shortage list eligibility.

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

Not to be pedantic but VendorInvestigate and Janoshik are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.

First order from MKM was great, second one had a different batch and tested lower. The vendor retested and credited me. Logged it here.

This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.

First order from HJ was great, second one had a different batch and tested lower. The vendor retested and credited me. Logged it here.

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

The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.

the reship rate on GL Biochem is actually pretty consistent

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

Yeah, MKM took 7 days and the material was flawless. Both of those things are true.

Copay was formulary for the copay then another 2% of the total. Read the actual plan document.

Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.

Strongly agree. Step therapy is predictable if you have the criteria.

How many orders from QSC is that a sample of? One reship is noise, five is a pattern.

This order history matches mine almost exactly. Same vendor, same timeframe, same result.

did they reship, credit, or ghost you?

the reship rate on CPC is actually pretty consistent