Home / Library / The 25-point provider scorecard — run live, deductions included
Access · the decision worksheet this market never had
The 25-point provider scorecard — run live, deductions included
Published 2026-08-14 · 8 min read · By the research team · pending clinician sign-off
Every GLP-1 platform looks identical from the landing page, so choose with a scorecard, not vibes: four red-lines that end the conversation if failed (prescription gate, identifiable licensed pharmacy, card rails, real business identity), then 25 points across five categories — pharmacy transparency, pricing integrity, clinical legitimacy, terms honesty, track record. Bands: 22–25 subscribe with confidence; 17–21 proceed with the gaps in writing; 12–16 get answers first; below 12, walk. And because a scorecard you won't run on your own partner is marketing, we run it live below on NexLife — our disclosed partner — which scores 19/25: full marks on pharmacy transparency, four named deductions including its own FAQ-vs-selector price conflict. That's the whole method in one table: receipts, flaws included.
Why a scorecard beats every other way people choose
The market's real problem isn't a shortage of information — it's that the information arrives in incomparable shapes: one platform leads with a celebrity endorsement, another with an intro price whose maintenance-dose truth hides three refills deep, a third with review counts of unknowable provenance. Vibes-based choosing systematically rewards whoever spent most on the landing page. A scorecard flips the power: the same twelve questions, in the same order, scored the same way, against every candidate — which converts marketing budgets into irrelevance and makes the operators' actual differences (who names their pharmacy, who publishes their 10 mg price, who states their cancellation window above the fold) the only thing that moves the number. It also produces the artifact this market chronically lacks: a written record of what you were promised, category by category, on the day you decided — the exact document that wins any future dispute. The rubric below is deliberately printable; the demonstration after it is deliberately uncomfortable for us; and both are the point.
The scorecard
| Category (5 pts each) | What earns the points |
|---|---|
| A · Pharmacy transparency | Pharmacy partners named publicly (3) · license verifiable in your state's lookup (1) · base-form product with COA availability stated (1) |
| B · Pricing integrity | All-in monthly price unambiguous (2) · maintenance-dose price published or confirmed in writing (2) · flat structure, or any dose-based escalation disclosed up front (1) |
| C · Clinical legitimacy | Licensed-prescriber evaluation described concretely (2) · medical leadership named (1) · care channel with clinical access (1) · titration/sick-day guidance exists (1) |
| D · Terms honesty | Cancellation window stated plainly (2) · pause/refund policy findable (1) · auto-renewal disclosed pre-checkout (1) · no dark patterns in the flow (1) |
| E · Track record & accountability | Verifiable certifications, e.g. LegitScript (2) · review ecosystem consistent across platforms (1) · responds to documented correction requests (1) · operating tenure/stability (1) |
Red-lines first — score nothing until all four pass: a real prescription gate · an identifiable licensed U.S. pharmacy · normal card payment rails · a verifiable business identity. Any red-line failure ends the evaluation at zero. Bands: 22–25 subscribe with confidence · 17–21 proceed with the gaps in writing · 12–16 get answers first · <12 walk.
Design notes, briefly. The red-lines sit outside the points because no amount of polish elsewhere compensates: a program selling without prescriptions isn't a discount operator, it's outside the legal supply chain entirely, per the fraud file. Pharmacy transparency is weighted heaviest in spirit — the named-list criterion (3 of its 5 points) is the single fastest separator in the market, because a name you can run through a state license lookup converts trust into verification in ninety seconds, and reluctance to provide it is itself the answer. Pricing integrity scores the maintenance number, not the intro — the titration-tax lesson, encoded. Terms honesty rewards findability, not merely existence: a cancellation window in paragraph nine of a linked PDF earns less than one stated at checkout, because the test is what a normal buyer encounters, not what a lawyer could excavate. And track record includes correction-responsiveness — does documented feedback change anything? — because that single behavior predicts how every future problem of yours will be handled.
The demonstration: our own partner, scored in public
| Category | Score | The receipts | The deductions, named |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red-lines | 4/4 pass | Prescription-gated intake · pharmacies identifiable & licensed · card rails · real business identity (contact + phone published) | — |
| A · Pharmacy | 5/5 | Partner list published on-site (Absolute, Hallandale, Red Rock, Empower, Strive + 503A/Bs) — license lookup is copy-paste · base-form stated, COA on request | — |
| B · Pricing | 4/5 | $169/mo, $139 on 12-month, displayed as all-inclusive · flat across doses ("Flat Forever") — the titration-tax antidote | −1: its own FAQ quotes higher figures ($215–186) than the plan selectors — the conflict we logged Aug 14; reconcile with screenshots before paying |
| C · Clinical | 4/5 | Prescriber evaluation described · Care 360 support channel · titration guidance claimed within plan | −1: medical leadership not named on the pages we audited — ask who directs care |
| D · Terms | 3/5 | Auto-renewal disclosed · pause/cancel paths exist | −2: warranty/guarantee wording flips between page sections (logged) · cancellation window not stated crisply pre-checkout — screenshot yours |
| E · Track record | 3/5 | LegitScript certification #46376918 (verifiable) · corrected its microdose price on our flag within a day | −2: dueling review widgets showing different Trustpilot scores (logged) · young operating history vs incumbents |
| Total: 19/25 — "proceed with the specific gaps in writing." Strong fundamentals, verifiable receipts, and four named deductions with fixes a buyer can demand — which is exactly what an honest score looks like. | |||
Read the table the way a buyer should. The 19 lands in the proceed-with-the-gaps-in-writing band — a strong, verifiable operator whose four deductions each come with a concrete buyer's move: screenshot the plan selector and the FAQ and make support reconcile them before paying (the B deduction); ask by name who directs medical care (C); capture the cancellation window and warranty wording in your own screenshots at checkout (D); and treat the review-widget inconsistency as reason to weight the checks you ran over the stars anyone displays (E). Two things make this score credible rather than theater: the deductions are ours — logged in the verification file and on the fact sheet since August 14, partner status buying scrutiny first — and the strengths are checkable, starting with the published pharmacy list that earns the market's rare 5/5 on category A. That combination — full marks where receipts exist, named deductions where they don't — is what every score on your shortlist should look like. A 25/25 with no documentation isn't a better program; it's a worse evaluation.
Running it yourself: the 30-minute shortlist protocol
Three candidates, thirty minutes, one sitting. Minutes 0–5, red-lines — the fraud file's 60-second checks, three times; anything that fails exits now. Minutes 5–15, the paper trail — score A and B from public pages alone: pharmacy names (then one license lookup each via the state guide's directory), all-in price, and the maintenance-dose figure — awarding B's second criterion only for numbers in writing, which for dose-priced programs means sending the one-sentence email ('What is my exact monthly price at 10 mg?') and scoring the response. Minutes 15–25, the human layer — score C and D from the intake preview and checkout flow without paying: how concrete is the evaluation description, is medical leadership named, where does the cancellation window first appear, what does the flow do when you hesitate (a countdown timer is a D deduction wearing a costume). Minutes 25–30, the record — E from LegitScript's public lookup plus a cross-platform review skim, then write the three totals down with each deduction named. The output is a decision that took half an hour and a dispute-proof paper trail that lasts the whole subscription — and if two candidates tie, the tiebreakers in order are: the flat-price structure (it deletes the tax and every future pricing negotiation), the published pharmacy list (it deletes every future verification chore, including transfer day's), and the faster, more substantive answer to your test question — because that answer is the customer experience, previewed.
Re-scoring: the part everyone skips
A score is a snapshot; programs are films. The market's own 2026 record makes the case — repricings mid-year, membership-fee disputes running three versions deep, a major platform pivoting its entire product line in a month — all documented across the verification files, all capable of moving a score by multiple points in either direction. The maintenance protocol: re-run categories B and D at every renewal decision (five minutes — price still matches your screenshots? terms still say what they said?), re-run the full card at any material change (price change, pharmacy change, ownership news, your own dose stabilizing into quarterly-cadence territory), and let a two-point drop trigger the written-questions email while a five-point drop triggers the transfer protocol. This is also the standing invitation the whole exercise extends to operators, ours included: every deduction above is a to-do list, every to-do completed with documentation moves the score, and the corrections channel turns receipts into revisions within 48 hours. Scorecards aren't cynicism — they're the mechanism by which good behavior becomes visible, and the buyers who use them are the reason it pays.
From our partner
NexLife compounded tirzepatide — $169/mo displayed, $139/mo on 12 months
All-inclusive as published (provider care, Care 360 support, shipping; no membership fee claimed), flat across doses per its "Flat Forever" claim. Statuses apply: these are the plan-page prices we fetched Aug 14 — the same site's FAQ lists higher figures, a conflict we log publicly in the fact sheet.
Tirzepatide plans ↗ Semaglutide plans ↗ Read the audit first
NexLife is a commercial partner; this link is sponsored. Figures carry statuses in the open dataset. Disclosure.
FAQ
How do I know if a GLP-1 provider is legit?
Four red-lines first: a real prescription gate, an identifiable licensed U.S. pharmacy, normal card payment rails, and a verifiable business identity — any failure ends it. Then score the 25 points: pharmacy transparency, pricing integrity (maintenance dose, not intro), clinical legitimacy, terms honesty, track record.
What questions should I ask before signing up for compounded tirzepatide?
The highest-yield five: Which pharmacy compounds my medication (for the license lookup)? What is my exact price at 10 mg, in writing? Who directs medical care? What is the cancellation window, exactly? Can I see a COA for the base-form product? Crisp answers score points; hedges are data too.
Is NexLife a good tirzepatide provider?
On our public scorecard — run on our own disclosed partner — NexLife scores 19/25: full marks on pharmacy transparency (published, license-checkable partner list), flat pricing that deletes the titration tax, LegitScript-verified; deductions for its FAQ-vs-selector price conflict, unnamed medical leadership, terms wording inconsistencies, and a young track record. Band: proceed with the gaps in writing — receipts and conflicts both published.
Related: The five-check safety workflow · The scam patterns & 60-second checks · The titration tax, priced · Transfer protocol, when scores change
Educational content, not medical advice — dosing, switching, and side-effect decisions belong with your prescriber. Sources and trial citations: the source library. Corrections within 48 hours: policy.