Availability by country, dated, with primary sources

On the subject in the title: Availability by country, dated, with primary sources Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Documenting an access outcome, dated, because everything in this category expires.

As of May 2026, in my region, the position is as described below. I have linked the primary source rather than a summary of it, because the summaries are consistently a year behind.

If anyone can confirm or contradict this for their own region, please date your answer. An undated claim in this category is worse than no claim.

I read the opening post twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Checked the availability claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.

The honest answer on availability is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.

Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.

Language matters for finding primary sources. The authoritative document is usually not in English and the translation usually is not authoritative.

That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.

Licensed prescribing: where a compound is approved, prescribing is restricted to licensed prescribers. Where it is not approved, the legality of possession and use is unclear.

Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.

Coming back to post #4, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

The most useful reply I ever got about availability was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.

Insurance and coverage: coverage decisions are national. A compound approved in one country might not be covered by insurance in another. Checking both approval and coverage is necessary.

That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.

Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.

Availability, approval and reimbursement are three separate questions and a country can be in a different state on each.

I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.

Regional stock in your own country removes the border question entirely, which is the reason it changes the calculation rather than just the timing.

Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.

Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.

Availability is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.

I have been on both sides of the availability argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.

This follows post #12 rather than contradicting it.

Customs practice varies between entry points within the same country, which is why two people in the same jurisdiction report different experiences honestly.

Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.