Follow-up: State-level differences that actually matter

That is the distinction I keep failing to hold on to. Written down now.

Picking up post #16: that is the part I would want checked first.

Emotional language in an appeal does not help, however justified it is. The reviewer is checking criteria and the job is to make them checkable.

Say which country and which state or province. Regulatory position, availability and practical route can all differ within the same continent and frequently do.

Where I have landed on State-level differences, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.

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.

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.

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.

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 is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.