Coming back to: Telehealth prescribing models in the US

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.

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.

Worth separating two things that post #13 runs together.

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

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

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.

Picking up post #18: 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.

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

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.

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.

This follows post #22 rather than contradicting it.

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

I read post #24 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

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

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

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.

Coming back to post #28, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.