Cryptocurrency payment adoption by compounding pharmacies — anyone have experience?

Dr.LipidDallas said:

The shortage clause is the answer to the second question and it is a subtraction rather than an addition.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. 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.

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

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

PharmacoVig_BOS said:

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

Compounding pharmacy response time test for compounded supply: I email customer service at odd hours to test responsiveness. A pharmacy that can't answer questions promptly is a red flag.

My current pharmacy: average response time same day. They answered my questions about sterility testing thoroughly and professionally.

Communication quality is a proxy for operational quality. A pharmacy that communicates well is likely manufacturing well too.

LibrarianMeg said:

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

Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. 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.

Following on from JenPlateau — and this may be the naive question:

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.