Cryptocurrency payment adoption by compounding pharmacies — looking for input

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

They are two different exemptions from the same federal requirements and they buy different things.

Pushing back on PharmacoVig_BOS here. 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.

LabKate said:

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

I have been on both brand and compounded, and in the context of compounded supply, my experience has been equivalent with both. The key is finding a reliable 503B pharmacy with independent testing.

NeuroNate said:

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

Coming at NeuroNate’s question from a different direction. The trade-off is reversibility against privacy and there is no option that gives you both. Card payments are reversible and disclose the most; crypto discloses least and is irreversible, which is precisely why pressure toward it is a warning sign when it comes from a seller rather than a buyer. Escrow only means anything where the escrow agent is independent of both parties, which is rarely the case in practice.

One thing that is still open after MikeFit_NJ’s answer:

What actually distinguishes 503A from 503B, in terms of what each may make and from what starting material?

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.