Canadian access and provincial variation — one year on

Canadian access and provincial variation — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

A follow-up question about Canadian access and provincial variation that I did not know to ask the first time.

The earlier thread answered what I asked. What I should have asked is below, and I think it is the one that matters.

The arithmetic in post #4 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

The denial letter is the specification for the appeal. It states a criterion and the job is to demonstrate that criterion in the letter's own language.

Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement.

Adding the measurement that post #9 says would settle it.

Practical note on Canadian access and provincial variation: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.

Everything in post #12 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

Canadian access and provincial variation has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.

On Canadian access and provincial variation I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.

Formulary position changes on a schedule that is published in advance, which means a decision made now may be answering last year's formulary.

Cost comparisons should state whether they include the device and the dispensing fee, because those differ between routes and between states.

Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.