On the subject in the title: Cross-border purchase rules within the EU Working notes rather than a conclusion.
The question about cross-border purchase rules within that I actually want answered is the second one below. The first is context and I have kept it short.
Both are stated with units, and I have said what I already checked so that nobody repeats it.
I read the opening post twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Prescription status is harmonised at the level of the authorisation and the practical route to a prescription is not.
The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests.
Germany: BfArM implements EU framework. Statutory insurance (the majority) excludes "lifestyle medicines" including weight management. Private prescription is common. Private insurance sometimes covers it.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
Coming back to post #4, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Worth separating cross-border purchase rules within as a question about the compound from cross-border purchase rules within as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.
Small correction to my own earlier position on cross-border purchase rules within. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
Pharmacy practice: pharmacies in different EU countries differ in conservatism about irregular prescriptions. Some will decline a prescription they consider irregular; others will not. Local pharmacy culture matters.
Post #11 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Practical answer on cross-border purchase rules within, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.
I read post #11 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on cross-border purchase rules within, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
Post #14 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
A methods point on cross-border purchase rules within rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
Movement of medicines between member states for personal use has rules, and they are published rather than a matter of custom.
Worth separating two things that post #16 runs together.
Marking my uncertainty on cross-border purchase rules within explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.
Netherlands: CBG-MEB implements framework. GPs are first point of contact. Insurance coverage for weight management is conditional on structured lifestyle programme participation.
One case, stated as one case.
That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.
Picking up post #20: that is the part I would want checked first.
Adding a small correction to the cross-border purchase rules within summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
What I want from this cross-border purchase rules within thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
I read post #26 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Date every claim. Positions in this subcategory have moved repeatedly and the archive keeps posts permanently.
The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.
Post #28 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Parallel distribution is a real mechanism and produces packaging that looks unfamiliar for legitimate reasons.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.