lc_gradient, post #16: Date every claim in this subcategory. Positions here have moved repeatedly and old posts are read as current. Go to post
Following this. I have the same question and no better information than the first post.
Regional · North America · continued
Telehealth prescribing models in the US posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
i.boateng, post #24: 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. Go to post
Reading this telehealth prescribing models thread as someone who came in with a fixed view: the third and seventh replies moved me and the confident ones did not.
Building on post #32 rather than restating it.
One caution on telehealth prescribing models: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
27 likes 19mo
sharps_bin, post #23: 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. Go to post
Nothing in this subcategory is medical or legal advice, and the clinicians posting here say so on their own account.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
a.jansen, post #13: Posting my telehealth prescribing models numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer. Go to post
Picking up post #36: that is the part I would want checked first.
Two things can be true about telehealth prescribing models at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.
On post #38 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Before the thread moves on from telehealth prescribing models — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.
21 likes 19mo
Ridgeway, post #9: 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. Go to post
United States: FDA licenses compounds. Prescribing and pharmacy practice are state-regulated. Compounds are prescription-only. Coverage is decided by individual plans, not nationally.
That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close.
owen.brady, post #42: United States: FDA licenses compounds. Prescribing and pharmacy practice are state-regulated. Compounds are prescription-only. Coverage is decided by individual plans, not nationally. That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close. Go to post
The practical version of telehealth prescribing models is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
Post #43 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Two questions I would want answered before drawing anything from the telehealth prescribing models data above: how were the cases selected, and what happened to the ones that dropped out.
24 likes 19mo
Helpful, and easy to find again, which is half of what a good reply is.
16 likes 18mo
r.zielinski, post #15: Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is. Go to post
The public assessment documents published at approval are free, detailed and largely unread here.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.
Post #47 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Telehealth prescribing models looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.
32 likes 18mo
Adding the measurement that post #47 says would settle it.
Private insurance gaps: some people have private insurance but medication is not covered. Manufacturer assistance programmes are the main resource for cost reduction.
The step people skip is the one I have spelled out.
0 likes 18mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
On post #48 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
I disagree with the framing of telehealth prescribing models above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Practical note on telehealth prescribing models: 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.
1 like 18mo
titration_diary, post #14: 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. Go to post
Worth separating two things that post #53 runs together.
I keep a log for telehealth prescribing models specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.