State-level differences that actually matter — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
A follow-up question about State-level differences that I did not know to ask the first time.
The earlier thread answered what I asked. What I should have asked is below, and I think it is the one that matters.
If you are new and reading this thread for the answer to State-level differences: the answer is conditional, the conditions are in the third reply, and the rest of the thread is worth skipping.
Everything in the opening post holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Where the State-level differences discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.
Narrowing post #3, because the general version has more than one answer.
Both are useful and different. The account tells you what happens in practice; the criterion tells you what to write.
The claim is narrower than it sounds, and deliberately so.
Something worth flagging about State-level differences: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence.
Where a manufacturer runs a direct supply route, that is a commercial arrangement rather than a regulatory change, and it can end.
The bit of State-level differences that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
The arithmetic in post #7 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Second-hand on State-level differences, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.
Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point.
That is the distinction I keep failing to hold on to. Written down now.
The documentation on State-level differences is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
Adding the measurement that post #12 says would settle it.
I have three months of notes on State-level differences and the honest summary is that the trend is real and the week-to-week numbers are noise. I nearly drew the opposite conclusion from the first fortnight.
Post #12 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Private insurance gaps: some people have private insurance but medication is not covered. Manufacturer assistance programmes are the main resource for cost reduction.
I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.
Reframing State-level differences slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
I had written a reply contradicting post #14 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
State-level differences has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.
Offering a way to settle State-level differences rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.
Taking post #16 at face value and following it one step further.
The reason State-level differences 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.
Quietly grateful for the plain phrasing. Not every thread gets that.
Cost comparisons should state whether they include the device and the dispensing fee, because those differ between routes and between states.
This settles it for me, at least until somebody posts a reason it should not.
The practical version of State-level differences is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
I read post #24 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Anyone reporting an outcome should give the stated reason rather than the verdict. The reason is the part somebody else can use.
Having read the whole State-level differences thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
Everything in post #27 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Distinguishing three things in the State-level differences discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
The public assessment documents published at approval are free, detailed and largely unread here.
I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.