This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Nothing here is financial advice and none of it is a route to a transaction.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
Price variation between pharmacies: identical prescriptions can cost different amounts at different pharmacies because pharmacies negotiate individually with insurers and manufacturers.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
Insurance tier placement: a compound might be covered but on a higher tier (higher copay). Moving to a lower tier usually requires prior authorization or documented failure of cheaper alternatives.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
The arithmetic in post #94 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Nothing here is financial advice and none of it is a route to a transaction.
Building on post #97 rather than restating it.
Compute cost per delivered dose at your dose if you want a number you can act on. That requires knowing your dose, vial volume, and whether you are using a vial or a pen.
Post #96 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Pharmacy acquisition cost: a pharmacy pays less than the patient pays, even at insurance rates. That margin is where the pharmacy's costs and profit live.
Cost per milligram is the only comparison that survives format differences, and even then it needs care.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
A cheaper option that arrives slowly has a cost in the form of running out, and people rarely price that.
Picking up post #105: that is the part I would want checked first.
Insurance tier placement: a compound might be covered but on a higher tier (higher copay). Moving to a lower tier usually requires prior authorization or documented failure of cheaper alternatives.
On post #106 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Nothing here is financial advice and none of it is a route to a transaction.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
Post #108 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The most useful pricing posts here are the ones that show the arithmetic rather than the conclusion.
I keep a log of this specifically because memory is unreliable about it.
Cost per milligram is the only comparison that survives format differences, but even then it needs care. A pen and a vial are not the same product and cannot be compared on price per milligram alone because dead volume, wastage, and number of doses actually obtainable differ.
Insurance tier placement: a compound might be covered but on a higher tier (higher copay). Moving to a lower tier usually requires prior authorization or documented failure of cheaper alternatives.
I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.
Compute cost per delivered dose at your dose if you want a number you can act on. Everything else is a comparison of packaging.
It cost nothing to check and would have cost something not to.
The most useful pricing posts here are the ones that show the arithmetic rather than the conclusion.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
This follows post #117 rather than contradicting it.
Insurance tier placement: a compound might be covered but on a higher tier (higher copay). Moving to a lower tier usually requires prior authorization or documented failure of cheaper alternatives.
I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.
Answering the question post #117 raises rather than the one it answers.
Nothing here is financial advice and none of it is a route to a transaction.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
The arithmetic in post #117 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Insurance tier placement: a compound might be covered but on a higher tier (higher copay). Moving to a lower tier usually requires prior authorization or documented failure of cheaper alternatives.
I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.