Telehealth prescribing models in the US Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
Trying to work out what would count as evidence on telehealth prescribing models, before collecting any. This is the part I usually skip and it is the part that makes the rest useful.
If two explanations predict the same observation, observing it does not help. So: what observation would separate them?
Coming back to the opening post, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
On telehealth prescribing models the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.
Formulary position changes on a schedule that is published in advance, which means a decision made now may be answering last year's formulary.
I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.
What I want from this telehealth prescribing models thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Taking post #5 at face value and following it one step further.
Cost comparisons should state whether they include the device and the dispensing fee, because those differ between routes and between states.
This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.
Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
The thing about telehealth prescribing models that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
Post #5 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Appeals succeed more often than people expect when they answer the stated criterion point by point and include nothing else.
That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.
The version of telehealth prescribing models that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.
Adding a small correction to the telehealth prescribing models summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
Worth separating two things that post #8 runs together.
Cross-border purchasing raises both a legal question and a practical one, and the legal one is yours to establish for your own jurisdiction.
Careful with the language on telehealth prescribing models. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.
Date every claim in this subcategory. Positions here have moved repeatedly and old posts are read as current.
Confirming post #14 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
I have been on both sides of the telehealth prescribing models argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
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.
That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
Adding the measurement that post #18 says would settle it.
Prior authorisation criteria are usually published by the payer and reading them before the appointment changes the outcome more than anything else does.
I would call that likely rather than established.
Canada: Health Canada licenses compounds. Prescribing is provincial. Compounds are prescription-only. Coverage varies between public and private insurance.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
A telehealth route and an in-person route can reach the same prescription through different criteria, and the criteria are what generalise.
One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.
Staff rationale: Hidden by community flags. The claim about a named supplier was not accompanied by a batch, a date, a method or a document, which R6 requires.
Answering the question post #21 raises rather than the one it answers.
On telehealth prescribing models 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.
The corresponding entry is in the public moderation log. Hidden posts are never deleted.
The arithmetic in post #21 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Anyone reporting an outcome should give the stated reason rather than the verdict. The reason is the part somebody else can use.
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
Confirming post #24 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
United States: FDA licenses compounds. Prescribing and pharmacy practice are state-regulated. Compounds are prescription-only. Coverage is decided by individual plans, not nationally.
Post #26 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
What I can speak to on telehealth prescribing models is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.
Summarising the telehealth prescribing models thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
Post #26 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Pharmacy practice varies between pharmacies within the same city, so two honest accounts can be entirely different.