Prescription requirements and telehealth models posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Scheduling and prescription status are separate questions and the answer to one does not imply the other.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
Confirming post #32 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The practical version of prescription requirements and telehealth models is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
An indication approved for one age range does not extend to another, and paediatric extensions are separate decisions with separate evidence.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
On prescription requirements and telehealth models the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.
Where I would push back on the prescription requirements and telehealth models consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
Coming back to post #38, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
If you can confirm or contradict a position for your own region, please date the answer. An undated regional claim is the least useful thing in this category.
Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.
What I would tell a new member reading about prescription requirements and telehealth models for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
Generic or biosimilar entry depends on patent and exclusivity positions that are jurisdiction-specific and are frequently misreported.
Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.
Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.
Taking post #43 at face value and following it one step further.
A note on scope: what I am saying about prescription requirements and telehealth models applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.
Prescription requirements and telehealth models would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
I had written a reply contradicting post #48 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about prescription requirements and telehealth models than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
Where a claim about legality is made here, the useful follow-up is which instrument it rests on. Most such claims turn out to rest on a forum post.
Worth separating two things that post #48 runs together.
Reading back through the prescription requirements and telehealth models threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.
Prescription requirements and telehealth models 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.
An indication approved for one age range does not extend to another, and paediatric extensions are separate decisions with separate evidence.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
Taking post #54 at face value and following it one step further.
Taking prescription requirements and telehealth models seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
Post #52 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Marking my uncertainty on prescription requirements and telehealth models explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.
Building on post #56 rather than restating it.
A methods point on prescription requirements and telehealth models rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.