Every evaluation on this site is scored the same way: eight criteria, each with four written definitions numbered 0 to 3, applied to what the company publishes on its own site on a stated date. This page is the rubric in full. If you read nothing else here, read the definitions, because they are the whole rule.
What the rubric measures
Disclosure. Each criterion asks whether a buyer can find a specific, decision-relevant fact on the company's public pages before handing over money or health information. It does not measure whether the medication works, whether the clinicians are good, or whether customers are happy. Those things matter more than disclosure, and we cannot measure them from a website, so we do not pretend to.
The consequence is that a careful program that publishes little scores lower than a mediocre program that publishes a lot. We accept that trade because the alternative, guessing at quality, is worse.
How to read a score
- 0, not stated. The public site does not answer the criterion's question. Not proof of a problem; proof that you cannot tell.
- 1, partial. Something is said, but a buyer still cannot act on it: an unnamed partner pharmacy, a starting-at price, a refund policy buried in the terms.
- 2, stated. The question is answered in a way you can verify or rely on, with at least one material gap.
- 3, documented. Answered in full, with the detail a careful buyer would need, in a place a buyer would look.
The eight criteria
Each criterion has an equal weight. The total out of 24 is printed on every evaluation because people will add the rows up anyway, but the rows are the finding. Same total, different weaknesses.
1. Licensure and state coverage
Can you find out, before paying, which licensed entities will treat you and dispense to you, and in which states the program operates?
| Score | Definition |
|---|---|
| 0 | No statement of which states are served, and no way to identify the licensed clinical entity or pharmacy from the public site. |
| 1 | States served are listed or implied, but the clinical entity (medical group) or the dispensing pharmacy is not identifiable from public pages. |
| 2 | States served are stated and the medical group or pharmacy is named, so a licence lookup is possible for at least one of them before you pay. |
| 3 | States served are stated, both the medical group and the dispensing pharmacy are named with a state of licensure or a licence reference, and the site points to a verification route (state board, NABP, LegitScript). |
2. Prescriber model
Who prescribes, how do they see you, and can you speak to a clinician in real time if you want to?
| Score | Definition |
|---|---|
| 0 | The prescribing route is not described: no statement of who prescribes or how the consultation happens. |
| 1 | Asynchronous only (questionnaire reviewed by a clinician) with no described route to a live visit, or the clinician type is not stated. |
| 2 | The clinician type is stated and a live video or phone visit is available on request or as part of the program, with asynchronous review as the default. |
| 3 | A live video or phone visit with a named clinician type is the default or is always available, follow-up cadence is described, and the site explains what the clinician reviews before prescribing. |
Asynchronous prescribing is lawful in many states and is not treated as a defect in itself. The score rewards telling you which model you are buying and giving you a route to a live conversation.
3. Pharmacy sourcing transparency
Does the program say where the medication comes from, and whether a compounded product is made under section 503A or 503B of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act?
| Score | Definition |
|---|---|
| 0 | Compounded medication is offered without saying it is compounded, or without saying that compounded drugs are not FDA approved. |
| 1 | Compounded status and the not-FDA-approved statement are present, but the pharmacy is described only as a partner or licensed pharmacy with no name and no 503A or 503B designation. |
| 2 | The pharmacy or pharmacies are named, or the 503A or 503B status is stated, and the not-FDA-approved statement is present on the product or program page. |
| 3 | Pharmacies are named with their 503A or 503B status, the site explains what that designation means for testing and beyond-use dating, and brand-name products are clearly distinguished from compounded ones. Brand-only programs score 3 when the dispensing pharmacy is named. |
The 503A and 503B distinction matters because it determines who inspects the compounder and what release testing is expected. The sibling site Compounding Explained covers it in detail.
4. Pricing transparency
Can you work out the total you will pay in month one and month four from the public site, and what that price includes?
| Score | Definition |
|---|---|
| 0 | No price on the public site, or a price shown only after account creation or intake. |
| 1 | A headline price is shown but what it covers is unclear: medication, visits, labs and shipping are not separated, or the price is a starting-at figure with no stated range. |
| 2 | Prices for medication and membership are published with what they include, but at least one material cost (dose escalation, labs, shipping, renewal price after a promotional period) is missing or hard to find. |
| 3 | Every recurring and one-off cost is published, price by dose or strength where it varies, promotional pricing is dated with the renewal price, and exclusions (labs, shipping) are stated next to the price. |
5. Refund and cancellation terms
What happens to your money if you are not prescribed, if you cancel, or if the medication arrives damaged or wrong?
| Score | Definition |
|---|---|
| 0 | No refund or cancellation policy is findable on the public site. |
| 1 | A policy exists but is a blanket all-sales-final statement, or cancellation requires a phone call with no stated hours, or the policy is only inside the terms of service. |
| 2 | The policy states what is refunded if a clinician does not prescribe, how to cancel a subscription, and the cut-off before the next charge or shipment. |
| 3 | Level 2 plus a stated remedy for damaged, lost or incorrect shipments, a cancellation route that does not require a phone call, and the policy is linked from the pricing or checkout page. |
Prescription medication that has shipped is almost never returnable, for good regulatory reasons. The score does not penalise that. It penalises not telling you.
6. Medication supply chain and COA availability
For compounded products, does the program say how the medication is tested, and will it show you a certificate of analysis for your lot?
| Score | Definition |
|---|---|
| 0 | No statement about testing, sourcing of the active ingredient, or quality control for compounded products. |
| 1 | A general claim (third-party tested, made in the USA, FDA-registered facility) with no detail on what is tested or whether documents are available. |
| 2 | Testing is described (potency, sterility, endotoxin, or a named standard) and the site says a certificate of analysis is available on request or in the account. |
| 3 | Lot-level certificates of analysis are published or provided with each shipment, the testing laboratory is identified, and the active ingredient source is described. Brand-only programs score 3 because the FDA-approved product carries its own manufacturer controls. |
7. Support access
If something goes wrong on a Saturday, how do you reach a person, and how fast do they say they answer?
| Score | Definition |
|---|---|
| 0 | No support channel is published beyond a contact form, and no response time or hours are stated. |
| 1 | One channel (email or in-app message) with no stated hours or response time. |
| 2 | Two or more channels, or one channel with stated hours and a stated response time, and a clear route to clinical (not just billing) questions. |
| 3 | Multiple channels including a phone or live option, published hours, a stated response time, and a described route for urgent clinical concerns. |
8. Privacy
What does the program say it does with your health data, and can you find the answer without a law degree?
| Score | Definition |
|---|---|
| 0 | No privacy policy findable, or a policy that does not mention health information at all. |
| 1 | A privacy policy exists but does not distinguish health information from marketing data, or discloses sharing of health-related information with advertising partners without an opt-out. |
| 2 | A privacy policy and a separate HIPAA notice of privacy practices (or equivalent) are published, and the policy states what is and is not shared with third parties for advertising. |
| 3 | Level 2 plus a plain-language summary, a described opt-out for tracking technologies, and a statement about how long records are kept or how to request deletion. |
What is deliberately left out
- Price level. A cheap program and an expensive one can both score 3 on pricing transparency. Whether a price is fair is a different question, and the sibling site GLP-1 Pricing Index is where we work on it.
- Clinical outcomes. No website tells you how its patients do. We do not infer it.
- User sentiment. No app-store ratings, no review-site scores, no social media. See the conflict of interest page for why.
- Regulatory history as a score. Where a primary document exists (an FDA warning letter, an FTC order, a court filing), the evaluation reports it in a separate section with a link. It does not move a score, because the rubric scores today's public pages and a document from two years ago may describe a company that no longer exists in that form.
Ties, ambiguity and rounding
When a company's pages fit two definitions, we score the lower one and say why in the justification. When a fact is on the site but only reachable through checkout or after account creation, it does not count: the rubric asks what a buyer can see before committing. When a fact is stated in two places that contradict each other, we score the lower reading and note the contradiction.
Changing the rubric
A definition changes only with a version bump. Every evaluation records the rubric version it used. When the version changes, all evaluations are re-scored before the new version is published, so the site never shows two versions at once. The current version is 1.0, published 2026-09-04.
Use the provider comparison builder to see up to three evaluations side by side on these rows, and read how we evaluate for the process that produces each page.
Questions people ask
Is a higher total a recommendation?
No. The total is a sum of eight separate judgements about what a company publishes. Two programs with the same total can differ on every row. The rubric measures disclosure, not clinical quality, and it cannot see how a program treats patients once they are inside.
Why is there no user rating or star score?
Because we cannot verify who wrote a user review or whether they were a customer, and because the FTC's rules on endorsements and on fake or incentivised reviews make aggregated ratings a liability for a site with a commercial interest in the category. We score what we can read and cite, and we say who we are.
What does a 0 mean?
That the public site does not state the thing the criterion asks about. It does not mean the company is doing something wrong. It means you cannot tell before paying, which is the problem the rubric is built to surface.
Sources
- FTC: Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 16 CFR Part 255 Accessed September 4, 2026.
- FTC: Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials, 16 CFR Part 465 Accessed September 4, 2026.
- FDA: Human Drug Compounding (503A, 503B, compounded drugs are not FDA approved) Accessed September 4, 2026.
- HHS: Notice of Privacy Practices for Protected Health Information Accessed September 4, 2026.
Canonical URL: https://formblendsreviews.com/methodology/scoring-rubric. Written by the FormBlends editorial team. This page is educational and is not medical advice; see the medical disclaimer.