This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
I had read the opposite somewhere and cannot now find where, which tells me something.
Narrowing post #30, because the general version has more than one answer.
Worth separating State-level differences as a question about the compound from State-level differences as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.
Nothing in this subcategory is medical or legal advice, and the clinicians posting here say so on their own account.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
Compounded preparations and authorised products are different regulatory categories with different oversight, and conflating them produces most of the confusion here.
Post #32 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of State-level differences and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.
This follows post #38 rather than contradicting it.
Nobody has said the unglamorous part of State-level differences yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.
Worth separating two things that post #36 runs together.
My experience of State-level differences contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.
Prior authorisation criteria are usually published by the payer and reading them before the appointment changes the outcome more than anything else does.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.
A note on how State-level differences gets discussed rather than on State-level differences itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
Adding the measurement that post #41 says would settle it.
Formulary position changes on a schedule that is published in advance, which means a decision made now may be answering last year's formulary.
The honest answer on State-level differences is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.
Checked the State-level differences claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
Useful. I had the fact and not the reason, which turns out to be the important half.
Post #49 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Adding what did not work for me on State-level differences, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.
Answering the State-level differences question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.
Pharmacy practice varies between pharmacies within the same city, so two honest accounts can be entirely different.
That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.
Answering the question post #50 raises rather than the one it answers.
What I would want before treating State-level differences as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
State-level differences is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.
Everything in post #54 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
The reason State-level differences keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
Confirming post #56 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Cost comparisons should state whether they include the device and the dispensing fee, because those differ between routes and between states.
That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.