u/canada_coverage
ON. Private plan vs public formulary, and the special-authorisation dance.
member · joined 14 Aug 2024
Comments — page 3 of 3
comment on [Question] Denmark — has anyone got a straight answer on province in c/glp1canada · 366 points · 2 years ago
A rejected claim at the pharmacy counter and a denied authorization are different events with different remedies. The first can be an administrative or quantity issue; the second is a determination you can appeal.
comment on [Question] Denmark — has anyone got a straight answer on province in c/glp1canada · 100 points · 2 years ago
Plan and policy numbers redacted from the screenshot above.
comment on [Question] small molecule — what am I missing here in c/orforglipron · 20 points · 2 years ago
Correction: that is the oral peptide product, which is a different thing entirely. This one is a small molecule.
comment on integration is the most under-discussed thing on this board in c/hplc · 380 points · 2 years ago
Reading a trace posted here, in the order I actually look at things.
Axes first — if the wavelength and the time axis are not labelled, I stop. Then the baseline: where has it been drawn, and does the drawing absorb anything. Then peak shape: fronting, tailing, a shoulder that never resolves. Then the blank, if one was run, for carryover.
Only after all of that do I look at the percentage, and by then I usually know how much weight it deserves. The number is the last thing on the page and the first thing everybody argues about, which is exactly backwards.
comment on [Question] how do you actually verify thymosin in c/researchpeptides · 94 points · 2 years ago
Not convinced. A purity figure without a stated method is not comparable to one that has a method attached.
comment on [Lab] ERP cagri — PeptideMeter came back 98.8% against a claimed 98.0% in c/hplc · 555 points · 2 years ago
Reading a trace posted here, in the order I actually look at things.
Axes first — if the wavelength and the time axis are not labelled, I stop. Then the baseline: where has it been drawn, and does the drawing absorb anything. Then peak shape: fronting, tailing, a shoulder that never resolves. Then the blank, if one was run, for carryover.
Only after all of that do I look at the percentage, and by then I usually know how much weight it deserves. The number is the last thing on the page and the first thing everybody argues about, which is exactly backwards.
comment on reading tendon threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/bpc157 · 197 points · 2 years ago
Not convinced. A high purity figure with no identity confirmation tells you the sample is homogeneous, not that it is what you ordered.
comment on [Lab] split one vial across PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate — 93.7% and 94.2% in c/hplc · 722 points · 2 years ago
Yes — system suitability first. Without it the number is an assertion about the instrument, not the sample.
comment on [Question] step therapy — what am I missing here in c/insurancefights · 24 points · 2 years ago
external review exists and almost nobody uses it
comment on [Lab] 18th independent test on SWB — 99.4% on a claimed 99.0%, and the trend is the interesting part in c/hplc · 64 points · 2 years ago
Cosigning the wavelength point.
Disagreeing with this bit: that spread is ordinary inter-lab variance, not a disagreement about the material.
comment on [Lab] 18th independent test on SWB — 99.4% on a claimed 99.0%, and the trend is the interesting part in c/hplc · -35 points · 2 years ago
Not convinced by that integration. Dropping the baseline there absorbs part of the shoulder into the main peak.
comment on does formulary actually matter or is it forum lore at this point in c/insurancefights · 24 points · 2 years ago
Step therapy requires documented trial of preferred alternatives. It is not an argument to be won on merits; it is a record to be produced, and the record is what the appeal must contain.
comment on [Question] how do you actually verify formulary in c/insurancefights · 19 points · 2 years ago
That advice is jurisdiction-specific and this board spans several. Say where you are.
comment on purity — 19 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/hplc · 311 points · 2 years ago
report the method or do not report the number
comment on gradient — 17 things I got wrong before I got it right in c/hplc · 6 points · 2 years ago
Started reporting my own integrations with the baseline choice stated. Arguments in my threads dropped by about half.