external review: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1
Been lurking in c/glp1eu for about 20 months and finally have something worth posting.
Short version: week 92, 0.5mg, and external review is the bit I still cannot get a straight answer on. I have read the wiki, I have read the last 31 threads, and the answers split roughly down the middle.
What I actually want to know is whether the people saying it does not matter have measured it, or whether it is just repeated confidently. Happy to be told I am overthinking this — I probably am — but I would rather overthink it now than at week 3.
best — the order this archive was captured in
external review is the appeal after insurance says no
external review is the appeal after insurance says no
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
copay is separate from coverage
copay is separate from coverage
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
step therapy documentation is the weapon, use it
copay is separate from coverage
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
Did you get step therapy or outright denial?
the carve-out clause varies by employer
Crossposting this to c/labresults because the people who need it are not reading this community.
step therapy documentation is the weapon, use it
Yeah, the denial code matters, it tells you what to fight.
redact member ids and group numbers from every screenshot
- 1Crossposting this to c/labresults because the people who need it are not…5 comments in this branch · started by u/cardio_endpoint_c
- 2copay is separate from coverage4 comments in this branch · started by u/rekha_vestergaard