Canadian access and provincial variation posts 61–81

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

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

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

Worth separating two things that post #60 runs together.

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

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.

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.

post #66 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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

On post #64 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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

This follows post #66 rather than contradicting it.

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.

I read post #68 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

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

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

I read post #71 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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

This follows post #71 rather than contradicting it.

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.