Dr.KarenChen said:

Shipping damage protocol for vendor vetting orders: if your package arrives with visible damage, temperature excursion, or broken vials: Photograph…

Second this. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

Worth separating that from cost and coverage, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

Following on from Dr.RaviCardio — and this may be the naive question:

What actually works on a prior-authorisation denial, as opposed to the list of things that sound like they should work?

jason_paloalto said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Carry on.