Best Providers With Live Video Visits
Programmes where a clinician appears on camera.
IVIM Health leads this ranking at $278 all-in monthly at a 10 mg maintenance dose and about $3,219 for a first year. The order is computed from the dataset on the criterion named in the title, not assigned editorially.
3 of 17 priced programmes qualify for this list; 14 are excluded because they do not meet the criterion. Programmes that publish no price we could capture cannot be ranked and are listed separately.
All-in monthly cost = medication + any recurring fee, at a named dose, before tax and before prepaid discounts. Captured 2026-08-05. How we verify a price.
Of the 32 programmes on this site, 11 have a price we read at the provider or manufacturer, 6 carry a third-party figure we have not confirmed, and 15 publish no price we can interpret. Every table shows which is which, because a comparison that mixes them without saying so is not a comparison.
Best Providers With Live Video Visits
| Programme | All-in at 10 mg | First year | Structure | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. IVIM Health | $278 | $3,219 | rises with dose+$75 membership | ✓ verified at source |
| 2. Mochi Health | $278 | $3,336 | flat at every dose+$79 membership | ✓ verified at source |
| 3. LifeMD | $548 | $6,576 | flat at every dose+$149 membership | third-party figure |
How this ranking is produced
The sort key is stated in the title and applied to the dataset. Nothing is weighted by hand, no programme pays for position, and the underlying figures are downloadable from the price index so the order can be reproduced rather than trusted. Where a programme is excluded, it is because it fails the criterion, not because of an editorial judgement about it.
What this ranking cannot tell you
Whether shipments arrive on time, whether messages get answered, or whether the clinical oversight is adequate. We hold no measurements of those we would defend, so they are absent rather than estimated. Read the individual review and run the pharmacy checks before enrolling anywhere this list surfaces.
How wide the spread actually is
Between the top and bottom of this list the difference is $3,357 on the criterion being ranked. IVIM Health leads and LifeMD sits last among those that qualify, for the identical molecule from the same category of licensed pharmacy.
That spread is not explained by the medicine. It is overhead, clinical wrap, pharmacy sourcing, marketing cost and margin. Knowing that is what makes shopping this category worthwhile at all: there is real money on the table and no clinical reason to leave it there.
What this ranking deliberately ignores
Shipping reliability, response times, clinical depth and how a programme behaves when something goes wrong. We hold no measurements of those we would defend, so they are absent rather than estimated, and no weighting has been applied to smuggle a judgement about them into the order.
That makes this list narrower than an editorial round-up and considerably harder to dispute. It answers one question exactly, and it says which question in the title.
Using a ranking without being misled by one
Set the dose you expect to maintain on, filter to prices we verified at source, and read the individual review of anything in the top three before enrolling. A ranking is a shortlist generator, not a recommendation, and the differences that decide satisfaction are mostly not the ones a ranking can measure.
Then re-run it annually. Programmes move pricing without telling existing patients, and several tracked programmes changed rates more than once in the past year.
The same 3 programmes at every dose
A ranking sorted at one dose is a ranking of one scenario. This is the qualifying field at the starter dose, a maintenance dose and the ceiling, so you can see whether the order holds.
| Programme | At 2.5 mg | At 10 mg | At 15 mg | First year | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IVIM Health | $208 | $278 | $325 | $3,219 | ✓ verified at source |
| Mochi Health | $278 | $278 | $278 | $3,336 | ✓ verified at source |
| LifeMD | $548 | $548 | $548 | $6,576 | third-party figure |
The spread between first and last on this criterion is $3,357. Where the order changes between columns, the programme you should choose depends on a dose decision your prescriber has not made yet — which is an argument for the flat-rate options rather than for the top of this table.
What the leader is not
IVIM Health leads on the criterion in the title. That is not a statement that it ships reliably, answers messages quickly, or provides better clinical oversight than the programme below it. We hold no measurements of any of those and will not imply otherwise by dressing a price sort as an overall verdict.
What it does mean is that on one stated, reproducible measure it comes first, and you can download the file and confirm that in under a minute.
Who this ranking is wrong for
Anyone whose binding constraint is not the one in the title. A cheapest-at-maintenance list is the wrong list for someone holding a starter dose permanently. A no-membership list is the wrong list for someone who would use unlimited clinician messaging weekly during titration.
There are more than twenty rankings on this site precisely because there is no single best programme. Pick the ranking that matches your constraint, then read the individual review.
How often this changes
Pricing in this market moved repeatedly through 2026 and five large programmes stopped selling compounded tirzepatide entirely. This table regenerates from the dataset on every build rather than being edited, so it cannot silently drift, but the underlying capture date is 2026-08-05.
Treat any ranking older than a month — ours included — as needing a re-check against the provider's own page before you act on it.
How to use a ranking without being used by one
Read the criterion in the title, then check it is your criterion. This list sorts on one measure; there are more than twenty rankings here because no single measure decides a purchase.
Then read the second and third entries as seriously as the first. The gap between them is frequently smaller than the difference in what they disclose, and a programme two places down that names its pharmacy is a better purchase than the leader that does not.
Finally, check the evidence column. IVIM Health leads here, and whether its figure was read at the provider or taken from a third party is stated in the row rather than buried in a methodology page.
Why we publish so many of these
Because a single 'best' list is a claim that everyone shares one constraint, which is obviously false. Someone holding a starter dose permanently, someone escalating to the ceiling, someone who cannot commit to a term and someone with a documented indication that unlocks coverage are four different buyers.
Splitting them into separate rankings costs us the ability to say 'the best programme is X', which is the sentence comparison sites are built to sell. It buys the reader an order that actually matches their situation.
If your constraint is not represented, the matrix sorts the same dataset on any column.
The failure mode this section is guarding against
Choosing a programme on a number that describes a different situation than yours. An entry price when you will hold maintenance. A medication figure when a membership applies. A promotional rate when you will renew. A prepaid rate when you will pay monthly.
Each of those errors is small individually and they compound in the same direction, which is why the cheapest-looking option in most published comparisons is the one most likely to be mis-stated.
Priced correctly, the cheapest verified route sits at $215 a month all-in at a maintenance dose. Anything materially below that band deserves the question of which distortion is producing it.
Why we publish the working rather than a verdict
A single recommendation is more useful to read and less useful to act on, because it hides the weighting. Two readers with different maintenance doses, different coverage and different tolerance for commitment should not receive the same answer.
So the tables carry the inputs and the rankings state their sort key. If you disagree with our weighting, take the file and weight it differently — that is what publishing it is for.
What would make this page wrong
A price change we have not captured, a programme leaving the market, or a figure we recorded from a third party that does not survive checking. All three have happened during 2026 and all three are logged when they do.
Prices here were captured 2026-08-05. Treat anything older than a month as needing a re-check against the provider's own page, which every programme record links directly.
Putting best providers with live video visits in proportion
It is one input into a decision with three parts: what you pay at the dose you hold, who makes what you inject, and what happens if you stop. Weighting any one to the exclusion of the others is how people end up on a cheap programme they abandon in month nine.
The frame: 17 programmes publish a price we could capture, spanning $215 to $548 a month all-in at a maintenance dose. Against a spread that wide, most optimisation attempted at the margins is worth less than getting the basis right once.
What good looks like
A programme that states a figure at a named dose, names the pharmacy behind it, publishes cancellation terms before payment, and says plainly that a compounded preparation is not FDA-approved. Four things, all cheap to publish, and a minority of the market does all four.
The cheapest verified route sits at $215 a month all-in, which establishes that disclosure and low price are not in tension. Programmes publishing more are not systematically dearer — which undercuts the usual explanation for withholding.
What to do next
Narrow to two or three on the criterion that actually binds for you, open the individual reviews, and send each the same five questions: total at 10 mg including every fee, which pharmacy, is the prescriber licensed in my state, what notice to cancel, and what is refundable.
Whoever answers all five in writing has told you more than any comparison table can, this one included. Whoever does not has also told you something.
The comparison most people get wrong
Almost every published tirzepatide ranking sorts on advertised entry price. That figure describes the four weeks you spend at the 2.5 mg starter dose — roughly 8% of a first year. Ten of your first twelve months are spent at or near a maintenance dose, which is why every figure here is stated at 10 mg and why the first-year column exists.
Open these rather than taking our word for it. Every one is a regulator, a trial registry, a label, an accreditor or the manufacturer.
Compare every programme on one screen
The matrix carries all-in price at every dose, fee structure, commitment terms, pharmacy disclosure and verification status for every programme we track.
Common questions
Which programme leads on providers with live video visits?
IVIM Health at $278 all-in monthly at a 10 mg maintenance dose and about $3,219 for a first year. The order is computed from the dataset on the criterion in the title, not assigned.
Is this ranking paid for?
No. No programme pays for placement or position, and the order is generated from the published dataset, which is downloadable so the ranking can be reproduced.
Why are some programmes missing from this list?
Either they fail the criterion for this list, or they publish no price we could capture. The second group appears in the provider directory with an explanation instead of an estimated figure.
How current are these prices?
Captured 2026-08-05. Each row carries an evidence status saying whether we read the figure at the provider or took it from a third party.
Does the ranking change with my dose?
Yes, on any list sorted at a maintenance dose. Flat-rate programmes hold one price at every strength while dose-scaled programmes climb, so the order at 2.5 mg is frequently not the order at 15 mg.