This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. Denials are usually procedural rather than clinical, and the order that works reflects that. Get the denial reason in writing, because it names the criterion you failed. Then supply the documentation that criterion asks for — usually documented BMI with a comorbidity, or a failed prior therapy. Then appeal, and ask for a peer-to-peer review, because a prescriber talking to a reviewing clinician resolves a large fraction of denials that written appeals do not. Manufacturer copay assistance is separate and applies mainly to commercial insurance, and patient assistance programmes are means-tested rather than a discount.

mike_nyc said:

Denials are usually procedural rather than clinical, and the order that works reflects that.

Agreeing with mike_nyc, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Orforglipron is a small molecule rather than a peptide, which is the whole point: no SNAC absorption enhancer, no fasting window, no cold chain, and oral bioavailability in the tens of percent instead of around one. Phase 2 put it near 14.7% weight loss at 36 weeks on the top dose with a side-effect profile that looks like the injectables.

Happy to go further on any of that.

VendorMark said:

Reading the phase 2 write-up next to the injectable trials, and the comparison people keep making does not survive putting the two protocols side by…

Agreed, and coverage criteria are plan-specific rather than insurer-specific. Two people with the same insurer and different employers have different rules, which is why "my insurer covers it" is not transferable information.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.