Editorial Policy

GLP-1 Picks is committed to providing honest, accurate, and useful information to help consumers navigate the GLP-1 telehealth market. This page explains our research methodology, ranking process, and editorial standards.

Our ranked shopping tables and finder cover the published partner roster. Selected independent reviews and retained pages for paused programs provide additional editorial context. A review does not establish an active affiliate offer. We may earn a commission from partner links. Partnership affects commercial placement; it does not change a provider’s score or our scoring criteria.

What do our editorial scores mean?

Our scores out of 10 assess published program information, prices and terms. They are not patient ratings, clinical outcome measurements or guarantees of safety. A higher score does not mean a treatment will work better for you.

Current limitation: some displayed scores come from earlier assessments that have not yet been reconciled with our detailed rubric. Others have been recalculated from recorded evidence. This makes direct numerical comparisons less reliable than they appear. Read each review’s costs, care arrangements, customer evidence and limitations alongside its score.

Our detailed rubric weights five categories:

• Cost & Pricing (25%): advertised starting costs, consultation and shipping fees, flat pricing and payment options
• Published Clinical Support (25%): clinician credentials, laboratory access, video appointments, pharmacy disclosure and independent verification
• Medication Options (20%): medication and administration options, brand-name access, insurance acceptance and prior authorization support
• User Experience (15%): sign-up and support arrangements, tracking tools, cancellation terms and published refund policies
• Transparency (15%): the disclosed business, medical team and pharmacies; visible prices, total costs, certifications and external review links

The current calculation gives no points to criteria without recorded supporting evidence. That can reflect information we could not verify, rather than a service the provider does not offer. Some criteria overlap across categories, and a wider range of medications or payment plans will not suit every reader. These are limitations of the rubric, not evidence of poor treatment.

Documented reputation or fulfillment concerns can reduce a score separately. Reviews explain the relevant sources and dates; a customer allegation is not a clinical finding. A Provisional badge signals limited history or evidence. It does not establish that all other scores have completed the same evidence audit.

Our Research Process

• We review each provider's website, pricing pages, and sign-up flow
• We reference published clinical trial data for medication efficacy claims (e.g., STEP, SURMOUNT, OASIS trials published in NEJM)
• We use FDA prescribing information as the source for side effect data
• We reference CMS and state Medicaid program announcements for insurance coverage information
• Price checks carry individual dates; a page revision does not reverify every provider fact

Which evidence supports each kind of answer?

• Prices and service terms: provider product pages, published policies and dated plan records support what a seller advertises. They do not establish the bill for a particular patient, prescription approval or treatment outcomes. Keep the product, administration route, required fees, first payment, renewal and commitment with the price.
• Medication and regulatory facts: the relevant FDA label, notice or other official record supports the claim within its stated scope. A provider's marketing copy or affiliate approval does not independently establish medication approval, compounding compliance or safety.
• Clinical results: use the cited study's formulation, dose, population, outcome and follow-up period. A result for one branded product or administration route does not automatically apply to another formulation or compounded preparation. Separate-study averages are not a head-to-head treatment ranking.
• Coverage: CMS, state programs, insurers and plan documents support their own eligibility and coverage conditions. Prior-authorization assistance, provider insurance acceptance and medication coverage are separate facts; none guarantees a reader's approval.
• Customer experiences: reviews and complaint records are attributed accounts, not controlled clinical evidence. A complaint does not prove every customer has the same experience, and missing information is not proof a service is absent.

When quoting our original comparison or dataset, link to its exact public page and preserve the verification date, billing basis and material unknowns. Follow its original sources for claims they establish. Our publication facts identify the publisher and coverage boundaries.

How do we use AI assistance?

We use AI tools to assist with research, drafting, organizing comparisons and technical checks. An AI answer is not primary evidence. Named authorship identifies editorial responsibility, not a guarantee of personal approval or clinical review of every page. A clinician's review must be explicitly identified before it can be claimed.

Editorial Independence

Affiliate relationships never change a provider's score. We give low scores to affiliated providers when the evidence warrants them, and disclose our commercial relationships so readers can assess our recommendations.

Our ranking table is ordered strictly by methodology score. Partnership never changes a score or a row position. The table covers approved partners, so it is not an exhaustive ranking of every available program. Some non-partner comparisons remain available; other coverage may be unpublished. The scoring limitations described above also apply to the ranking table.

Where we feature a subset of partners, our "Top Pick" and the top-3 we highlight for an easy start, those featured picks are drawn from our affiliate partners and may prioritize the ones with stronger affiliate economics. They are labeled as featured and we earn a commission on them.

Medical Accuracy Standards

• We do not make independent claims about drug efficacy, we reference published clinical trial results and FDA-approved labeling
• When discussing medication benefits, we include relevant risk information (fair balance)
• We cite our sources and link to primary sources when possible
• We do not promote off-label drug use
• We clearly distinguish between FDA-approved medications and compounded alternatives

Corrections Policy

If you notice inaccurate information, please contact editor@glp1picks.com with the page URL, disputed fact and supporting source. We investigate corrections and preserve material qualifications; we do not promise a resolution before the evidence is checked.

Content Freshness

The GLP-1 market changes rapidly. Publication and revision dates describe the page; provider-price checks and other source checks have separate dates. Older or missing verification dates remain visible. A changed layout, regenerated reference file or policy revision is not a new clinical or price check. Confirm time-sensitive terms with the provider and applicable original source before acting.

Related: how we make money and who we are.