Cancellation and Refunds

What you are actually buying

A telehealth subscription bundles four things that are frequently priced as one: a clinical review, a prescription, fulfilment through a pharmacy, and ongoing access to somebody who will answer a question. Programmes differ enormously in how much of each they provide, and the difference is invisible in a monthly price.

The question that separates care from a vending machine

Can this programme decline to prescribe? A service that guarantees approval before a clinician has seen your history is not running a clinical process, whatever else it discloses. The most reassuring thing a telehealth service can do is turn someone away.

What the care model changes about your bill

Video visits, included laboratory work and real clinician access cost money to provide, and programmes that provide them are rarely the cheapest. That is not a scandal — it is what you are paying for. The failure is paying a premium for an asynchronous questionnaire that a cheaper programme provides identically.

What we could not verify

Response times, whether the same clinician sees you twice, and how a programme behaves when something goes wrong. We hold no measurements of those we would defend, so they are absent from every table rather than estimated.

What a subscription actually buys

Four things, usually priced as one: a clinical review, a prescription, fulfilment through a pharmacy, and ongoing access to somebody who will answer a question. Programmes differ enormously in how much of each they provide, and the difference is invisible in a monthly price.

The most expensive programmes are not reliably the ones providing the most. Some are simply carrying more marketing cost, and a cheaper programme that names its pharmacy and answers messages within a day is providing more of what matters.

The test that separates care from a vending machine

Can this programme decline to prescribe? A service that guarantees approval before a clinician has seen your history is not running a clinical process, whatever else it discloses. The most reassuring thing a telehealth service can do is turn somebody away.

Ask what histories would stop a prescription being written. A programme that can answer has clinical governance; one that treats the question as an obstacle does not.

Where asynchronous care is genuinely adequate

For an uncomplicated patient with a clear history, a well-designed questionnaire reviewed by a licensed clinician is a reasonable standard of care and is how a large share of prescriptions in this category are written. It is faster, cheaper and no less careful when the intake is designed to surface contraindications.

It is weaker where the history is complicated, where the answers need follow-up questions, or where somebody is likely to under-report. A video visit is not automatically better care, but it is harder to complete on autopilot.

How this connects to what you will actually pay

Everything in this section resolves to one number: the all-in monthly cost at the dose you end up holding. Across the 16 programmes we price, that runs from $215 at the cheapest tracked route to several times that at the most expensive, for the identical molecule from the same category of licensed pharmacy.

5 of those programmes charge a recurring platform fee on top of medication and 12 hold one price at every strength. Those two facts explain most of the spread between advertised prices and real ones.

What we could verify and what we could not

11 of 32 tracked programmes have a price we read at the provider or manufacturer. The rest carry third-party figures we have not confirmed, or publish nothing we can interpret. Every table on this site marks which is which, and the comparison matrix lets you filter to verified prices only.

Where we have checked a third-party figure against a provider's own page, it has almost always moved — and it has moved upward. Promotional first months, prepaid bundle rates and medication-only figures that exclude memberships are all published as ongoing all-in prices. Assume an unverified figure is optimistic.

The regulatory distinction that sits under all of this

Compounded tirzepatide is not FDA-approved. FDA does not review compounded preparations for safety, effectiveness or quality before they are marketed. The active molecule is the same as the branded product; the pre-market review is not, and the assurance comes instead from the pharmacy, the state board that licenses it and, at good operations, batch sterility and potency testing.

That is a legitimate framework rather than a loophole, and it is also why the price is lower. It puts more of the verification burden on the patient, which is the honest trade being made.

Why the same molecule sells across a fifteenfold range

The active ingredient is identical whether it arrives as Zepbound at list price or as a compounded preparation at $215 a month. What differs is everything around it: pre-market review, manufacturing under a federal quality system, supply-chain traceability, cold-chain validation, pharmacovigilance and the commercial cost of bringing a drug to market at all.

That is the trade a compounded route asks you to make, and it is a real one in both directions. The approved product carries assurances the compounded one does not. The compounded one is accessible to people for whom the approved product is not, which is not a trivial benefit when the alternative is no treatment.

What is not defensible is presenting the two as equivalent. A compounded preparation is not a cheaper version of Zepbound; it is a different regulatory object containing the same molecule.

The pharmacology behind the fees

Tirzepatide is dosed weekly, ships refrigerated and must not freeze. Those three facts explain most of the fee structures in this market. Weekly dosing means monthly fulfilment cycles and recurring shipping. Refrigeration means insulated packaging, coolant and expedited carriage. Not freezing means the winter and summer failure modes are different and both cost money to mitigate.

A programme charging nothing for shipping has absorbed that cost into the medication price rather than eliminated it. A programme itemising it has not necessarily made you worse off. The only comparison that survives either structure is the all-in monthly figure, which is why it is the only figure this site ranks on.

What stopping does, and why it belongs in a cost calculation

The withdrawal evidence for this drug class is consistent: substantial weight regain follows discontinuation, because the drug suppresses appetite while it is being taken rather than resetting a set point. That is a pharmacological property, not a failure of willpower.

Read as a budgeting question, it means the relevant number is not what a first year costs but what a sustainable year costs, repeated. A programme you can afford for three years at a maintenance dose is a better clinical bet than one you can afford for eight months, even if the second is cheaper on the month you enrol.