The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Regional · North America · continued

Canadian access and provincial variation posts 31–60

This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.

RE
r.ekstromTL2 Moderator29 Jan 2025#31

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

0 likes 18mo
EF
endo_fellow_rkTL3Endocrinology fellow29 Jan 2025#32
j.solberg, post #9: United States: FDA licenses compounds. Prescribing and pharmacy practice are state-regulated. Compounds are prescription-only. Coverage is decided by individual plans, not nationally. Go to post

Telehealth prescribing: widespread in the US and varying in quality. Models without a clinician reviewing measurements and history are not recommended by this community.

29 likes in reply to #9 18mo
CA
c.amankwahTL2 Moderator29 Jan 2025#33
r.ekstrom, post #31: Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing. The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough. Go to post

Coming back to post #31, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Cross-border purchase: buying in the US and bringing to Canada or vice versa involves both countries' import rules. The medication is legal but crossing borders with it is regulated.

10 likes in reply to #31 18mo
TH
TL4_HalvorsenTL4Leader · Journal club30 Jan 2025#34

Picking up post #31: that is the part I would want checked first.

Provincial formularies in Canada are published and are the correct source for coverage information. Coverage for weight management is less common than for diabetes.

3 likes 18mo
SA
s.adebayoTL2 Moderator30 Jan 2025#35

Prior authorisation, step therapy, and exclusion of weight-management indications from coverage are common access barriers. The denial letter tells you which barrier you are facing.

0 likes 18mo
FN
formulary_notesTL3Regular30 Jan 2025#36

post #35 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

0 likes 18mo
LV
l.vukovicTL2 Moderator31 Jan 2025#37
n.nyberg, post #3: Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first. Telehealth prescribing: widespread in the US and varying in quality. Models without a clinician reviewing measurements and history are not recommended by this community. Go to post

I read post #35 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Canada: Health Canada licenses compounds. Prescribing is provincial. Compounds are prescription-only. Coverage varies between public and private insurance.

15 likes in reply to #3 18mo
WP
weekly_pinTL2Regular31 Jan 2025 · edited#38

Indigenous healthcare systems: different indigenous healthcare systems have different medication access. Pathways through tribal health systems differ from mainstream healthcare.

5 likes 18mo
II
i.ilungaTL2 Moderator31 Jan 2025 · edited#39

On post #35 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Compounding pharmacies: pharmaceutical compounding of a drug not on the FDA shortage list is substantially constrained. The landscape changed when supply normalised. Current compounding availability is limited.

30 likes 18mo
SL
sleep_logTL2Regular31 Jan 2025#40

Prior authorisation, step therapy, and exclusion of weight-management indications from coverage are common access barriers. The denial letter tells you which barrier you are facing.

15 likes 18mo
NR
n.ramosTL2 Moderator1 Feb 2025#41

United States: FDA licenses compounds. Prescribing and pharmacy practice are state-regulated. Compounds are prescription-only. Coverage is decided by individual plans, not nationally.

0 likes 18mo
I
IHollingworthTL2Member1 Feb 2025#42

On post #38 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Telehealth prescribing: widespread in the US and varying in quality. Models without a clinician reviewing measurements and history are not recommended by this community.

0 likes 18mo
TM
t.marchettiTL2 Moderator1 Feb 2025 · edited#43
c.grimaldi, post #6: Cross-border purchase: buying in the US and bringing to Canada or vice versa involves both countries' import rules. The medication is legal but crossing borders with it is regulated. Go to post

Canada: Health Canada licenses compounds. Prescribing is provincial. Compounds are prescription-only. Coverage varies between public and private insurance.

4 likes in reply to #6 18mo
LS
l.sarkissianTL2Member2 Feb 2025#44
h.almeida, post #15: United States: FDA licenses compounds. Prescribing and pharmacy practice are state-regulated. Compounds are prescription-only. Coverage is decided by individual plans, not nationally. Go to post

Provincial formularies in Canada are published and are the correct source for coverage information. Coverage for weight management is less common than for diabetes.

13 likes in reply to #15 18mo
NK
ni.kravchenkoTL2 Moderator2 Feb 2025#45

post #44 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Cross-border purchase: buying in the US and bringing to Canada or vice versa involves both countries' import rules. The medication is legal but crossing borders with it is regulated.

0 likes 18mo
R
RodriguesTL3Regular2 Feb 2025#46

Worth separating two things that post #42 runs together.

Regional variation in North America: access differs substantially by US state and Canadian province. Postcode is a major determinant of access.

2 likes 18mo
RS
r.sobczakTL2 Moderator2 Feb 2025#47
r.jhannsdttir, post #11: Private insurance gaps: some people have private insurance but medication is not covered. Manufacturer assistance programmes are the main resource for cost reduction. Go to post

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

8 likes in reply to #11 18mo
EA
e.almeidaTL2Member3 Feb 2025#48

Private insurance gaps: some people have private insurance but medication is not covered. Manufacturer assistance programmes are the main resource for cost reduction.

19 likes 18mo
AK
ak.kravchenkoTL2 Moderator3 Feb 2025#49
f.lindholm, post #23: Canada: Health Canada licenses compounds. Prescribing is provincial. Compounds are prescription-only. Coverage varies between public and private insurance. Go to post

post #48 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

19 likes in reply to #23 18mo
AD
ambient_draftTL3Regular3 Feb 2025#50

Compounding pharmacies: pharmaceutical compounding of a drug not on the FDA shortage list is substantially constrained. The landscape changed when supply normalised. Current compounding availability is limited.

0 likes 18mo
CD
c.dahlbergTL2 Moderator3 Feb 2025#51

I read post #49 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Canada: Health Canada licenses compounds. Prescribing is provincial. Compounds are prescription-only. Coverage varies between public and private insurance.

0 likes 18mo
IC
i.coelhoTL2 Moderator4 Feb 2025#52

This follows post #49 rather than contradicting it.

Telehealth prescribing: widespread in the US and varying in quality. Models without a clinician reviewing measurements and history are not recommended by this community.

32 likes 18mo
DP
d.petrescuTL2 Moderator4 Feb 2025#53
c.grimaldi, post #6: Cross-border purchase: buying in the US and bringing to Canada or vice versa involves both countries' import rules. The medication is legal but crossing borders with it is regulated. Go to post

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

17 likes in reply to #6 18mo
JH
j.hartmannTL2 Moderator4 Feb 2025#54

Prior authorisation, step therapy, and exclusion of weight-management indications from coverage are common access barriers. The denial letter tells you which barrier you are facing.

6 likes 18mo
P
PSkarbekTL3Regular5 Feb 2025 · edited#55

Coming back to post #53, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Private insurance gaps: some people have private insurance but medication is not covered. Manufacturer assistance programmes are the main resource for cost reduction.

1 like 18mo
BR
b.restrepoTL2 Moderator5 Feb 2025#56

Regional variation in North America: access differs substantially by US state and Canadian province. Postcode is a major determinant of access.

0 likes 18mo
BM
buffer_marginTL3Regular5 Feb 2025#57
v.bergstrom, post #12: Picking up post #9: that is the part I would want checked first. Telehealth prescribing: widespread in the US and varying in quality. Models without a clinician reviewing measurements and history are not recommended by this community. Go to post

Cross-border purchase: buying in the US and bringing to Canada or vice versa involves both countries' import rules. The medication is legal but crossing borders with it is regulated.

23 likes in reply to #12 18mo
KA
k.agyemanTL2 Moderator5 Feb 2025#58

post #57 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

11 likes 18mo
NK
n.krastevTL2 Moderator6 Feb 2025#59

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

0 likes 18mo
DO
d.oyelaranTL3Pharmacist6 Feb 2025#60

Provincial formularies in Canada are published and are the correct source for coverage information. Coverage for weight management is less common than for diabetes.

17 likes 18mo