Scoring System

Seven inputs, published weights

Our disclosure score measures what a programme publishes before you pay — not the quality of its care, which we have no way to measure and will not pretend to. Price stated at every dose tier is worth 25 points; price independent of dose 20; pharmacy or prescriber named 15; no separate membership 10; prepaid term published 10; state availability published 10; delivery formats published 10.

Why publication rather than quality

Because publication is checkable and quality is not, at least not from the outside. A programme that names its pharmacy has given you the one fact that lets you check a state board register yourself. A programme with excellent clinicians and no disclosure has given you nothing to verify.

Recompute it yourself

Every input is derivable from the published dataset, so the number can be reproduced. If you think the weighting is wrong, take the data and weight it differently — that is why it is published.

How this page fits the rest of the site

Everything here rests on one dataset: all-in monthly cost at six dose tiers for every tracked programme, with a capture date and an evidence status on each record. Rankings sort that dataset on a stated criterion; comparisons read the same rows; the calculators run against the same file. Nothing on this site is assembled by hand, which is why a policy page can describe a rule rather than an intention.

What we publish when we are not sure

The absence. A programme that does not publish a price gets a page saying so and listing what to ask before handing over a medical history. A figure taken from a third-party round-up is labelled as unconfirmed rather than presented alongside verified prices as though the two were equivalent. Where two sources disagree we show both.

That produces a shorter table than competitors publish. It also produces one that survives being checked, which is the only durable advantage a comparison site has.

The disclosures that matter more than any policy

Compounded preparations are not FDA-approved and are not reviewed by FDA for safety, effectiveness or quality before marketing. Tirzepatide is a prescription medicine and nothing here is medical advice. No programme pays for placement or position, and rankings are computed from the published dataset rather than assigned.

Tell us when we are wrong

Prices move, terms change and programmes leave the market. If a figure here differs from a programme's own page, ours is wrong. Send the URL through contact and the change is logged in corrections with the date it was made.

The standard this site holds itself to

Publish what can be verified, label what cannot, and record what changed. Those three rules generate everything else: why 11 of 32 programmes carry a verified tag and the rest do not, why some rows are blank, and why corrections appear on the page where the error was rather than in a log nobody reads.

They also explain what is missing. There are no ratings out of ten, no star scores and no aggregate quality judgements, because we cannot measure service quality from outside and inventing a number for it would corrupt the figures that are real.

Why the dataset is published rather than described

Every table on this site is generated from one file: 32 programmes with all-in cost at six dose tiers, first-year totals, fee structure, commitment terms, care model, pharmacy disclosure, evidence status and source, each with a capture date.

That file is downloadable. Sort it by first-year cost and it should reproduce our cheapest ranking exactly. If it does not, that is a bug or a lie, and you can find it without our help. A comparison site that will not publish its own data is asking to be trusted rather than checked.

The commercial conflict, named

Comparison sites in health are funded by the companies they rank. That creates an obvious incentive to rank the highest-paying option first and describe the arrangement vaguely, and it is the reason readers are right to be sceptical of every site in this category.

The defences available are boring and checkable: compute rankings from a published dataset on a stated sort key, publish the dataset, log corrections publicly, and record negative facts about highly ranked programmes. None of that proves good faith. It makes bad faith detectable, which is the most any publisher can honestly offer.

What good looks like in this market

A programme that publishes its price at every dose tier, names the pharmacy that compounds the medicine, states its cancellation terms before you pay, and can decline to prescribe. Those four together are rarer than they should be, and they cost a programme nothing except the ability to advertise a number that is not the number.

The cheapest tracked route currently runs $215 a month all-in at a 10 mg maintenance dose, about $2,580 for a first year. That figure is what a well-informed buyer should be measuring every other offer against.

What the inputs look like in practice

Of the 17 priced programmes, 11 name a dispensing pharmacy or prescriber before purchase, 11 charge no separate recurring fee, and 11 hold one price at every dose.

Those three inputs alone separate the field more than price does. A programme can sit mid-table on cost and top the disclosure score, and several do.

Where this sits against the dataset

The figures behind this page come from one file: 32 programmes, all-in cost at six dose tiers, terms, care model, pharmacy disclosure, evidence status and source, each with a capture date. All-in cost at a maintenance dose runs $215 to $548 across it.

Change the file and every table, ranking and calculator changes with it. There is no separate editorial layer to adjust, which is the structural reason a policy page here can describe a rule rather than an intention.

What it would take to prove us wrong

Download the dataset, sort it on the criterion named in any ranking title, and check whether our published order reproduces. Then open any provider link and compare our figure to theirs. Both checks take minutes and neither requires trusting us.

If they disagree, that is a bug or a lie and we would rather hear about it than have it found later by someone with less reason to be generous.