CarlaRPh_TPA said:

Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. A research-chemical supplier selling lyophilised powder labelled research use only is not compounding and is not claiming to. It is a different legal universe with no pharmacy oversight, no patient relationship and no content guarantee, and conflating the two in these threads helps nobody.

marco_milano said:

My pharmacy stopped supplying with three weeks notice and a letter that explained nothing, so I went and read the statute.

503A vs 503B compounding pharmacies for compounded supply — this distinction matters enormously:

I strongly recommend 503B facilities. The FDA oversight and cGMP requirements mean more consistent product quality.

COA_Karl said:

A research-chemical supplier selling lyophilised powder labelled research use only is not compounding and is not claiming to.

Regarding compounded supply compounding legality: compounding pharmacies can legally produce semaglutide and tirzepatide while these drugs remain on the FDA shortage list. If/when the shortage resolves, the legal landscape may change.

Stay informed. The FDA shortage list is updated regularly. Current status as of my last check: semaglutide still in shortage, tirzepatide removed from shortage list. This directly impacts compounding availability.

One thing that is still open after mike.trainer_LA’s answer:

Why a shortage listing created a legal pathway at all, since a shortage is a supply fact rather than a permission?

OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.

The bulks-list asymmetry was the piece I had missed entirely. It explains why one of my two pharmacies is still arguing it can supply and the other simply stopped.