Telehealth Price Transparency
What programmes publish before you pay, scored and ranked.
What programmes publish before you pay, scored and ranked.
Across the 17 programmes we price, all-in cost runs from $133 a month at the starter dose, with the cheapest first year at about $2,580 (NexLife, $215 a month at a 10 mg maintenance dose). Every figure on this page is on that same all-in basis.
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.
| Programme | Pharmacy disclosure | Visit model | Labs | Price evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NexLife | 6 named partners | async | not required | ✓ verified at source |
| Mochi Health | owned facility | video | optional | ✓ verified at source |
| Henry Meds | not named | async | not required | third-party figure |
| Ro Body | brand fulfilment | async + messaging | optional | no price published |
| WeightWatchers Clinic | not published | not published | not published | no price published |
| Hims & Hers | brand only since Mar 2026 | async | optional | no price published |
| Found | not named | async | optional | third-party figure |
| Calibrate | not published | not published | not published | no price published |
| Form Health | not published | not published | not published | no price published |
| Noom Med | Tailor Made Compounding | async | optional | no price published |
| PlushCare | not published | not published | not published | no price published |
| Sesame Care | not published | not published | not published | no price published |
| LifeMD | not named | video | required | third-party figure |
| IVIM Health | not named | video | required | ✓ verified at source |
| Join Fridays | not published | not published | not published | third-party figure |
| Eden | not named | async | optional | ✓ verified at source |
| ShedRx | partially named | async | optional | ✓ verified at source |
| MEDVi | not named | async | not required | ✓ verified at source |
| TrimRx | not named | async | included when needed | ✓ verified at source |
| SkinnyRx | not named | async | not required | ✓ verified at source |
| Yucca Health | named physicians | async | not required | ✓ verified at source |
| OrderlyMeds | not named | async | not required | no price published |
| Lavender Sky Health | not published | not published | not published | ✓ verified at source |
| Emerge Weight Loss | not published | not published | not published | no price published |
| Amble Health | not published | not published | not published | third-party figure |
| Fifty 410 | not published | not published | not published | ✓ verified at source |
| Big Easy Weight Loss | not published | not published | not published | no price published |
| Rift | not published | not published | not published | no price published |
| Gimme Care | not published | not published | not published | no price published |
| Trillium | not published | not published | not published | no price published |
| Remedy Meds | not published | not published | not published | third-party figure |
| Goby Meds | not published | not published | not published | no price published |
First-year all-in cost
What transparency means here
Not how a programme describes itself, but what a prospective patient can establish before paying: the price at the dose they will hold, the fee structure, the pharmacy, the prescriber, the cancellation terms.
The scoring
Seven inputs with published weights, all derivable from the dataset, so the score can be recomputed rather than trusted. It measures publication, not care quality.
The finding
Of 32 programmes, 11 publish a price we could verify at source. The remainder either carry figures we took from third parties or publish nothing interpretable. Every time we have checked a third-party figure against a provider's own page, the number moved — and it moved upward.
Why the errors run one direction
Promotional first months, prepaid bundle rates and medication-only figures that exclude mandatory memberships are all published as ongoing all-in prices. Three distortions, all flattering.
Why this distinction changes what you pay
Every structural difference in this market resolves into money at a maintenance dose. Whether a programme charges a membership, whether it reprices with the dose, whether it demands a term, and whether it bundles or splits its charges together account for most of the gap between the cheapest tracked first year at $2,580 and the most expensive.
None of those differences is visible in an advertised headline figure, which is the reason this site exists in the form it does.
How to act on it this week
Price the dose you expect to maintain on rather than the starter dose. Add every recurring fee. Ask whether the quoted rate holds at renewal. Establish who compounds the medicine. And do not enter a prepaid term until you have held a maintenance dose for a cycle.
Those five steps take under an hour and reliably beat any amount of comparison reading, because they surface the information that comparison tables omit.
How this connects to what you will actually pay
Everything in this section resolves to one number: the all-in monthly cost at the dose you end up holding. Across the 17 programmes we price, that runs from $215 at the cheapest tracked route to several times that at the most expensive, for the identical molecule from the same category of licensed pharmacy.
6 of those programmes charge a recurring platform fee on top of medication and 11 hold one price at every strength. Those two facts explain most of the spread between advertised prices and real ones.
What we could verify and what we could not
11 of 32 tracked programmes have a price we read at the provider or manufacturer. The rest carry third-party figures we have not confirmed, or publish nothing we can interpret. Every table on this site marks which is which, and the comparison matrix lets you filter to verified prices only.
Where we have checked a third-party figure against a provider's own page, it has almost always moved — and it has moved upward. Promotional first months, prepaid bundle rates and medication-only figures that exclude memberships are all published as ongoing all-in prices. Assume an unverified figure is optimistic.
The regulatory distinction that sits under all of this
Compounded tirzepatide is not FDA-approved. FDA does not review compounded preparations for safety, effectiveness or quality before they are marketed. The active molecule is the same as the branded product; the pre-market review is not, and the assurance comes instead from the pharmacy, the state board that licenses it and, at good operations, batch sterility and potency testing.
That is a legitimate framework rather than a loophole, and it is also why the price is lower. It puts more of the verification burden on the patient, which is the honest trade being made.
Method
Computed over one file covering 32 programmes on a single price basis: all-in monthly cost, medication plus any recurring fee, at a named dose tier. No estimates, no imputed values, and no programme excluded for reasons other than the criterion stated.
Where a finding depends on a figure we could not verify at source, it is flagged rather than rounded away.
Findings
All-in cost at a 10 mg maintenance dose spans $215 to $548 — a 2.5-times spread for the identical molecule from the same category of licensed pharmacy. 11 of 17 programmes hold one price at every dose; the rest reprice as you climb. 6 charge a mandatory recurring fee on top of medication.
Fewer than a fifth identify the dispensing pharmacy before purchase, which is the single disclosure that would let a patient verify anything independently.
Limitations
Everything here comes from published material we could access. We did not enrol, did not mystery-shop, and did not contact programmes for comment before publication. Service quality, shipping reliability and clinical depth are absent because they are not measurable from outside.
A programme that discloses something we could not find should tell us, and the record will be corrected with the date.
Reuse
Cite freely with attribution and the capture date. Journalists and analysts should take the underlying file rather than transcribing from a table, because the file carries the evidence status that a table necessarily compresses.
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 telehealth price transparency 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.
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.