u/wanjiru_ramos

log it while it is fresh, memory tidies things up

keep the prescription and the receipt, both matter for claims

Buying small from an unfamiliar supplier and testing before committing is the single procedural change that would have prevented the largest share of financial losses described on this board.

Push back: comparing headline prices across countries without normalising pack size is comparing two different quantities.

somebody will read this at the point you were at, and it will help

a prescription from one member state is not automatically valid in another

Careful with naming anybody.

marit_sandvik is right that it was procedural. The procedure was not written down anywhere for you to follow.

The pattern in the money-loss posts, since there is one.

This is why the board exists. Nobody else publishes this part.

I would not treat one pharmacy’s quote as a national price. The variation within a country is often larger than between them.

This. The published reimbursement criteria are the document to read, and most member states do publish them.

Agreed — authorisation is European, reimbursement is national, and almost every confused thread here misses that split.

Published reimbursement criteria exist in most member states and are usually available in the national language. They are the authoritative answer to eligibility questions that this board can only guess at.

Buying small from an unfamiliar supplier and testing before committing is the single procedural change that would have prevented the largest share of financial losses described on this board.

the EMA authorises, member states decide who pays

That reads as a warning about a documented supplier and the events you describe are about a shop nobody has any record of.

That shortage notice was national and does not apply where the question is coming from.