Posting this under the heading it deserves: Telehealth prescribing models in the US Everything below is what sits behind that.
Telehealth prescribing models — I have the observation and I do not trust my interpretation of it, so I am posting the observation and holding the interpretation back.
Numbers, method and the conditions under which they were collected are below. Interpret them however they warrant.
Reporting rather than recommending, on Telehealth prescribing models. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.
Building on the opening post rather than restating it.
Cross-border purchasing raises both a legal question and a practical one, and the legal one is yours to establish for your own jurisdiction.
Post #2 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Cost comparisons should state whether they include the device and the dispensing fee, because those differ between routes and between states.
Telehealth prescribing models came up in a thread eighteen months ago and was answered well. I cannot find it, which is itself the problem, so here is the reconstruction.
Pharmacy practice varies between pharmacies within the same city, so two honest accounts can be entirely different.
That is the version I use. It may not be the version that is correct.
Where I part company with post #6, and it is a narrow parting.
The honest answer on Telehealth prescribing models is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.
Appeals succeed more often than people expect when they answer the stated criterion point by point and include nothing else.
An observation about Telehealth prescribing models that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private.
Picking up post #9: that is the part I would want checked first.
My understanding of Telehealth prescribing models is a few years old and may have been superseded. If it has been, I would genuinely like to know rather than keep repeating it.
Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.
Say which country and which state or province. Regulatory position, availability and practical route can all differ within the same continent and frequently do.
Scoping that to what I have actually seen rather than what I have read.
Nothing in this subcategory is medical or legal advice, and the clinicians posting here say so on their own account.
Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.
Two sentences on Telehealth prescribing models 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.
I read post #15 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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 would be cautious about generalising from the Telehealth prescribing models example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
Where a manufacturer runs a direct supply route, that is a commercial arrangement rather than a regulatory change, and it can end.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
This follows post #18 rather than contradicting it.
The question underneath Telehealth prescribing models is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of Telehealth prescribing models and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.
Answering the Telehealth prescribing models question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.
Post #24 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Telehealth prescribing: widespread in the US and varying in quality. Models without a clinician reviewing measurements and history are not recommended by this community.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
What I would want before treating Telehealth prescribing models as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
The public assessment documents published at approval are free, detailed and largely unread here.
Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.
Canada: Health Canada licenses compounds. Prescribing is provincial. Compounds are prescription-only. Coverage varies between public and private insurance.
I have left out the parts I could not verify.
Post #28 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Two things can be true about Telehealth prescribing models at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.