🍪 CompoundTalk uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsInternationalIreland HSE coverage for Wegovy — looking for input

Ireland HSE coverage for Wegovy — looking for input

roxy_nash Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 9:11 PM 13 replies 2,056 viewsPage 1 of 3
This thread is more than 23 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
roxy_nash
Member
178
890
Dec 2024
Nashville, TN
Jun 25, 2024 at 9:11 PM#1

Writing this once so I can stop repeating it across threads. It is about cost and coverage, and it is deliberately narrow — everything I am not confident about is marked as such.

What is actually established

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.

The condition it depends on

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.

What I am not sure about

The narrow version of the question is what actually works on a prior-authorisation denial, as opposed to the list of things that sound like they should work. I would rather have one careful answer than five confident ones.

— roxy_nash · corrections welcome and will be edited into this post with credit
36 14josh_phd_bmore, roxy_nash, tony_orlando and 33 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
NeuroNate
Senior Member
2,890
16,789
Dec 2023
Chicago, IL
Jun 25, 2024 at 10:39 PM#2
roxy_nash said:
Denials are usually procedural rather than clinical, and the order that works reflects that.

All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.

37 15wendy_avl, jason_paloalto, Dr.LeslieOBGYN and 34 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
anders_CPH
Senior Member
1,567
7,234
Feb 2024
Copenhagen, DK
Jun 26, 2024 at 12:07 AM#3
roxy_nash said:
Denials are usually procedural rather than clinical, and the order that works reflects that.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The affordability discussion here usually stops at individual tactics. At list price this class is out of reach for most of the people who would benefit, and no amount of appeal strategy changes that — it is a pricing problem wearing a paperwork costume.

Last edited: Jun 26, 2024 at 4:07 AM
38 16AussieAnna, BethLabQueen, ChrisMacros and 35 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics

Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.

View Results
carl_compliance
Member
234
1,123
Nov 2024
Raleigh, NC
Jun 26, 2024 at 1:35 AM#4

Answering the narrow version, because the broad one does not have a single answer. The dose-response is real but shallow at the top. Across STEP 1 and STEP 4 the gap between 1.7mg and 2.4mg is a couple of percentage points of body weight on average, and the average is carrying a wide spread — plenty of people at 1.7mg sit above the 2.4mg mean. If a dose is working and tolerable, "working" is the relevant variable, not "maximal".

Happy to go further on any of that.

39 17FDA_TrackerJim, ricardo_MIA, BrianDallas92 and 36 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
mona_PHX
Member
189
890
Dec 2024
Phoenix, AZ
Jun 26, 2024 at 10:08 AM#5
NeuroNate said:
All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule.

That holds for the injectable. The oral formulation has different absorption behaviour and the dose numbers are not interchangeable, which is worth saying out loud because people quote them as if they were.

40 18MariaRD, AussieAnna, BethLabQueen and 37 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

EU EMA compounding guidance — 2026 regulatory update9 replies
UK NHS GLP-1 prescribing — NICE TA875 and access guide7 replies
Australian TGA scheduling changes — peptide access 20268 replies
Canadian GLP-1 coverage — provincial formulary comparison6 replies
Purchasing GLP-1 in Mexico — legality, quality, and safety concerns6 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register