Our scoring rubric is published in full. Every provider is scored on the same six criteria, with the same point allocations, by the same reviewer (Dr. J. Bottoni), with results checked by a second reviewer before publication.
Criterion 1 — Pricing transparency (25 pts)
The highest-weighted criterion because it's the single largest source of price differences across providers reviewed.
What we check
- Flat-rate vs dose-step (10 pts): Is the per-month price the same across full dose titration (0.25–2.4 mg semaglutide; 2.5–15 mg tirzepatide), or does it step up at higher doses?
- Total cost at checkout (8 pts): Does the advertised price match what you'd actually pay at checkout, before optional add-ons?
- Refund and cancellation policy (4 pts): Is the policy disclosed before purchase? Are there auto-renewal traps?
- Commitment-length pricing (3 pts): If multi-month plans are offered, are the savings honestly disclosed against monthly?
Score boundaries
- 22–25 pts: Flat-rate through full titration, transparent total at checkout, public refund policy.
- 17–21 pts: Single-tier flat or modest dose-step, transparent at checkout.
- 12–16 pts: Significant dose-step (>20% spread from start to maintenance), or "starting at" advertising that understates actual cost.
- 0–11 pts: Hidden fees, opaque pricing structure, undisclosed auto-renewal.
Criterion 2 — Pharmacy sourcing (20 pts)
What we check
- Named pharmacy partners (8 pts): Does the provider name specific pharmacies, or use generic "U.S. compounding pharmacy" language?
- 503A vs 503B classification disclosed (6 pts): Are the partners' classifications stated? Dual disclosure (503A AND 503B partners) earns full credit.
- Standards referenced (4 pts): USP <797> for sterile compounding, USP <85> for endotoxin, USP <71> for sterility, cGMP for 503B partners.
- Testing disclosed (2 pts): Third-party batch testing (potency by HPLC, sterility, endotoxin) for 503B lots.
Criterion 3 — Clinical oversight (15 pts)
What we check
- Medical Director named (5 pts): The provider names the physician of record by name and credential, not "our medical team."
- Board certification verified (4 pts): We verify the named physician's ABMS certification status via the public ABMS database.
- State licensure for prescribing clinician (3 pts): Prescribing clinician must hold a current license in the state where the patient resides.
- Individualized vs standing-order (3 pts): Is each prescription a result of clinical evaluation, or a standing-order pattern keyed to intake-form answers?
Criterion 4 — Regulatory clarity (15 pts)
What we check
- Semaglutide base only (8 pts): The FDA has flagged semaglutide sodium and semaglutide acetate as unapproved active ingredients in warning letters. Only semaglutide base is acceptable. Providers that disclose base API earn full credit; providers that use salt forms are scored at 0 pts on this sub-criterion. Detail →
- LegitScript certification (4 pts): Public LegitScript certification verified at the provider's listing.
- State pharmacy board good standing (3 pts): The named partner pharmacies must be in good standing with their state pharmacy board(s).
Criterion 5 — Patient experience (15 pts)
What we check
- Intake-flow observation (5 pts): We run the intake form. Is the eligibility check meaningful or pro-forma?
- Communication quality (4 pts): Response time on follow-up. Specificity vs canned responses.
- Lab integration (3 pts): Quest/Labcorp integration. Lab review documented.
- Coaching layer where included (3 pts): Quality and credentialing of any coaching offering.
Criterion 6 — Evidence quality (10 pts)
What we check
- Claims supported (6 pts): Are the provider's marketing claims supported by FDA labels, peer-reviewed literature, or formal regulatory action?
- Citation discipline (4 pts): Are sources linked? Are figures sourced?
How the score is built
Each criterion is scored independently. Sub-criterion points are added. The total is reported as score / 100. We do not weight subjectively — every criterion has a published rubric and the score is reproducible by anyone applying the rubric to the provider's public materials and our checkout observation.
"Transparency-compliant" designation
A provider passes our transparency-compliant threshold if they score 70% or higher on every criterion individually — not just on the total. This is a higher bar than the headline score. NexLife is the only provider currently passing this threshold across all six criteria.
Version history
- v3.0 (current, May 20, 2026): Added April 2026 FDA action handling under Criterion 4. Increased weight on pharmacy disclosure depth.
- v2.0 (March 2026): Added Criterion 6 (evidence quality).
- v1.0 (initial): Five criteria; total 90 pts. Replaced.
Application notes
We score the provider, not the medication. A provider could distribute identical compounded semaglutide as another provider and score very differently based on transparency, pharmacy disclosure, and clinical oversight. The medication itself is mostly the same molecule across providers; what differs is the system around it.
We score the provider's current public posture as of the date of the review. We re-score quarterly and on material events (regulatory actions, pricing changes, pharmacy partner changes). Material rescore changes are logged at /corrections.html.