Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

bri_stats said:

Insurance coverage hack for cost and coverage: if your insurance denies brand Wegovy/Ozempic, consider these alternatives: Prior authorization appeal…

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

One concrete data point for the thread. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.

Happy to go further on any of that.

Following on from bri_stats — and this may be the naive question:

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Carry on.