u/tuva_kirchner

Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.

The Medutest result at 98.0% was below the 98.1% claim. FGP retested at their cost and came back 98.0%. Logged as resolved.

prior auth criteria are state-specific, prior authorization differs

Cosigning. The concentration on the vial in marker is load-bearing.

Mechanistically the bit that matters is batch. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.

compounding status changed mid-2024

say which country and which plan type

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

the 98.7% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal

the 98.1% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal

Came off after 34 weeks for financial reasons. Regained about a third over the following year. Back on now at a much lower dose.

step therapy documentation is the weapon, use it

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

testing the vendor claim versus testing your actual vial are two different posts

SGN / BPC / batch 6 / Janoshik / 99.3% — that is the shape

Cosigning. The concentration on the vial in marker is load-bearing.

Not to be pedantic but bacteriostatic water and insulin syringe are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.

Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 97.6% on the same vial is normal.

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

Yeah, the denial code matters, it tells you what to fight.

Slight fix: the number was 97.2, not 97.4. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.

sample of one, say so