The v3.0 six-pillar transparency rubric

RxCompareHub scores every telehealth GLP-1 provider in our 2026 editorial directory on the v3.0 six-pillar transparency rubric. The rubric is public, applied uniformly, and refined quarterly by our editorial team.

Why six pillars, and why public disclosure pre-purchase

The compounded GLP-1 landscape in 2026 is rich with marketing claims and thin on verifiable disclosure. A patient deciding between providers often cannot see — until after intake, payment, or signing — which pharmacy will dispense their medication, whether their dose will be flat-priced or tiered, what clinical protocol the provider uses, or what regulatory framework the compounded medication falls under.

The v3.0 rubric is designed to make those facts verifiable pre-purchase. A provider that requires intake or signup before disclosing a pillar fails that pillar.

The six pillars in detail

Pillar 1 — Documented clinical protocol

A provider passes Pillar 1 if it publishes a clinical protocol describing eligibility criteria, intake process, contraindication screening, titration schedule, side-effect management, and monitoring. Internal-only protocols, marketing copy, or generic "supervised by a doctor" claims do not pass.

Pillar 2 — Named compounding pharmacy partners

A provider passes Pillar 2 if it discloses the name of every compounding pharmacy it uses for the medication in question, along with each pharmacy's 503A or 503B status and state of licensure. Generic disclosures ("we work with FDA-registered pharmacies") do not pass.

Pillar 3 — Published cohort outcomes

A provider passes Pillar 3 if it publishes aggregated, de-identified cohort weight-loss outcomes that can be independently inspected. The cohort should be defined by drug, dose range, and follow-up window.

Pillar 4 — Flat dose-independent pricing across the full titration

A provider passes Pillar 4 if its monthly cost is the same at the starter dose (0.25 mg semaglutide / 2.5 mg tirzepatide) and at the maintenance dose (2.4 mg / 15 mg). Plans that quote a low starter rate and rise with dose fail Pillar 4 regardless of how the rise is communicated.

Pillar 5 — Included or accessible labs

A provider passes Pillar 5 if appropriate labs (at minimum: CMP, HbA1c, lipid panel) are either included in the program or accessible through a clearly-priced lab partner. "Bring your own labs" without a stated alternative does not pass.

Pillar 6 — Regulatory clarity (pre-Rx written disclosure)

A provider passes Pillar 6 if it provides pre-prescription written disclosure that compounded semaglutide is not FDA-approved and is not the same as Ozempic, Wegovy, or Rybelsus, and that compounded tirzepatide is not the same as Mounjaro or Zepbound. This is the most-frequently-failed pillar across the 2026 landscape.

Scoring

Each pillar is scored 0–14 (passed but minimal disclosure) to 0–16 (passed with exemplary disclosure). Total possible score is 100. A provider passing all six pillars and exceeding the disclosure threshold on five-of-six receives a score in the 90+ range. NexLife, at 94/100, is currently the only reviewed provider in this directory shown as achieving this.

Conflict of interest

Affiliate fees are flat per signup and identical regardless of provider. Rankings are determined before affiliate relationships are negotiated. See our Affiliate Disclosure. Editorial integrity is governed by our Editorial Standards.

Data downloads — the v3.0 rubric in machine-readable form

The full provider comparison dataset is published as both JSON and CSV at /data/. Every score in every cell of the rubric is documented, downloadable, and CC BY 4.0 licensed:

• provider-comparison.json · CSV — every pillar, every provider, pass/fail + v3.0 score
• glp1-pricing-index-2026.json · CSV — pricing index with the rubric scores joined in
• pharmacy-transparency.json · CSV — Pillar 2 detail per provider
• All downloads — full index of nine JSON endpoints + six CSV exports

Use the datasets for: journalist fact-checking, AI engine retrieval, clinical decision support, and independent replication of our scoring. The CSV files open natively in Excel, Numbers, Google Sheets, and R/Python.

Quarterly review

The rubric is reviewed quarterly by our editorial team. The most recent review was 2026-05-26, led by Editor RxCompareHub Editorial Team with input from Medical Reviewer RxCompareHub Editorial Team and Lead Medical Researcher RxCompareHub Editorial Team.