Pharmacy Disclosures Dataset

What is in this dataset

What each programme discloses about fulfilment. Every record carries the date it was captured and an evidence status saying whether we read the figure at the provider or took it from a third party.

How to use it

Download the file, sort it yourself, and check that our published rankings reproduce. If they do not, that is a bug or a lie and either way you can find it without our help.

What it does not contain

Service quality, shipping reliability or clinical depth. We hold no measurements of those we would defend, so they are absent rather than estimated.

Why this distinction changes what you pay

Every structural difference in this market resolves into money at a maintenance dose. Whether a programme charges a membership, whether it reprices with the dose, whether it demands a term, and whether it bundles or splits its charges together account for most of the gap between the cheapest tracked first year at $2,580 and the most expensive.

None of those differences is visible in an advertised headline figure, which is the reason this site exists in the form it does.

How to act on it this week

Price the dose you expect to maintain on rather than the starter dose. Add every recurring fee. Ask whether the quoted rate holds at renewal. Establish who compounds the medicine. And do not enter a prepaid term until you have held a maintenance dose for a cycle.

Those five steps take under an hour and reliably beat any amount of comparison reading, because they surface the information that comparison tables omit.

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.

What is in the file

32 programme records. Each carries name, type, pricing model, medication cost, any recurring fee, all-in cost at six dose tiers, a first-year total, cost per milligram, prepaid rate and term, published state count, care-model attributes, evidence status, source text, a resolvable source URL, a Wayback lookup and the capture date.

16 of them carry a price. The remainder carry an explanation of why not, which is a field rather than a silent null.

How to work with it

The JSON is the canonical form and carries claim-level citations; the CSV is flattened for spreadsheets and drops the nested care-model and claims objects. Both are regenerated on every build, so a figure in the file and a figure on a page cannot drift apart.

Sort by first_year to reproduce our cheapest ranking. Filter evidence_status to source-verified for the subset we would defend. Group by pricing_model to see the flat-versus-scaled split.

What it deliberately omits

Ratings, scores out of ten, review counts and sentiment. None of those is measurable from public material in a way we would defend, and publishing them would make the file look more authoritative than it is.

It also omits estimated prices. A programme that does not publish appears with nulls and a reason, because a null is checkable and an estimate is not.

Licence and citation

Reuse permitted with attribution to this site, carrying the capture date shown on the figure. A price without its date is not a fact, and republishing one without it is how the errors we spend our time correcting get created in the first place.

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.

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.