Evaluation methodology
How we evaluate online care providers
The Care Path Compare Editorial Team applies the same core consumer questions to each provider, preserves missing or conflicting information, and separates editorial findings from affiliate compensation.
Core comparison criteria
- Total program cost and the conditions behind an advertised price
- Amount due today, recurring charge, billing interval, and full commitment
- Clinician access, consultation format, follow-up, and response structure
- Medication model and whether medication is included when prescribed
- Dispensing-pharmacy and fulfillment transparency
- Laboratory, shipping, supplies, and other possible charges
- State availability and other clearly disclosed eligibility limits
- Cancellation deadlines, automatic renewal, and refund cutoffs
Source and date standards
Provider-specific findings rely on current official provider pages, policies, terms, FAQs, checkout disclosures, and affiliate-program documentation. Regulatory and general health context relies on primary government, regulator, approved-label, or medical sources when available. We record access or verification dates and periodically recheck volatile commercial facts.
Page-level verification notes
Commercial articles may display a Care Path Compare verification note showing how many cited sources support the page and when volatile commercial details were last checked. The count is not a quality score. It is a transparency signal showing the evidence set behind that page. We prioritize official provider, manufacturer, policy, regulator, and approved-label sources where they are available.
Pricing research standard
When we compare online GLP-1 program prices, we separate a promotional or first-month amount from the recurring price, plan commitment, renewal amount, medication cost, and other required fees. We also record whether medication is included, whether the pathway is branded or compounded, and the cancellation and refund rules that can change the real consumer cost. If those fields are not comparable across providers, we label the limitation instead of forcing a ranking.
Unknown and conflicting information
An unanswered fact remains unknown or not clearly disclosed. When official pages conflict, we preserve the conflict and identify the question a consumer should resolve instead of choosing a preferred interpretation without evidence.
How provider order is determined
Provider lists may be alphabetical or ordered by a clearly labeled comparison field, such as a verified advertised price. The page explains the ordering rule. A price table does not represent treatment quality, clinical suitability, overall value, or a universal provider ranking.
When a provider is included or deferred
A provider may be included when enough current information is available to support the page’s criteria. A provider may be deferred when key facts are incomplete, conflicting, outdated, or not comparable to the data field being shown. Affiliate approval does not guarantee inclusion.
Rankings and affiliate independence
A commercial relationship cannot purchase a score, preferred placement, recommendation, or removal of a limitation. A scored ranking would require a published methodology, comparable evidence for every included provider, complete result records, and validation before release.
Medical limitations
The methodology evaluates consumer-facing program information, not whether a medication or provider is medically appropriate for a particular person. A licensed healthcare professional must determine eligibility, treatment, and prescribing decisions.
Read the editorial policy andaffiliate disclosure for related standards.
Effective July 13, 2026Last updated August 9, 2026