Posting this under the heading it deserves: Canadian access and provincial variation Everything below is what sits behind that.
Trying to establish the boundary conditions on canadian access and provincial variation. The general claim is fine; I want to know where it stops holding, because that is where I am operating.
Three edge cases below, in increasing order of how far outside the usual range they sit.
I had written a reply contradicting the opening post and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Two claims get bundled together under canadian access and provincial variation and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
Adding the measurement that the opening post says would settle it.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about canadian access and provincial variation in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
The useful distinction on canadian access and provincial variation is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.
Say which country and which state or province. Regulatory position, availability and practical route can all differ within the same continent and frequently do.
I would call that likely rather than established.
Picking up post #4: that is the part I would want checked first.
Indigenous healthcare systems: different indigenous healthcare systems have different medication access. Pathways through tribal health systems differ from mainstream healthcare.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
On post #6 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
What would change my mind on canadian access and provincial variation is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
I disagree with the framing of canadian access and provincial variation above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Private insurance gaps: some people have private insurance but medication is not covered. Manufacturer assistance programmes are the main resource for cost reduction.
This follows post #9 rather than contradicting it.
Reading this canadian access and provincial variation thread as someone who came in with a fixed view: the third and seventh replies moved me and the confident ones did not.
The version of canadian access and provincial variation that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.
Everything in post #13 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Adding a small correction to the canadian access and provincial variation summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
Canadian access and provincial variation is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.
Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.
Regional variation in North America: access differs substantially by US state and Canadian province. Postcode is a major determinant of access.
Adding what did not work for me on canadian access and provincial variation, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.
Formulary position changes on a schedule that is published in advance, which means a decision made now may be answering last year's formulary.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.
The most useful contribution is the current published criterion with a link and an access date, rather than an account of what happened to somebody.
The reason canadian access and provincial variation is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.
Two sentences on canadian access and provincial variation and then I will stop, because the rest is speculation and the thread is better without mine.
What is documented is narrow. What is inferred from it is broad. The gap between them is where every argument here lives.
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.
I have separated what I observed from what I concluded, which does not always happen.
I read post #28 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
I would be cautious about generalising from the canadian access and provincial variation example above. It is a good example. It is one example.