A ranking site asks readers to trust its judgment about products that cost real money and affect real health. That trust should not have to rest on vibes. This page is the contract: the standards every page must clear before it goes live, the parts of our process most sites keep vague, and what happens when we get something wrong.

The content, and the point of each type

We publish four formats. Top 10 rankings order providers by score so a shopper can shortlist in minutes. True cost guides establish the actual dollar figures for each medication across every purchase route. Brand reviews document a single company's prices, policies, and record in depth. Learning guides explain the medicine itself with no commercial layer at all. Every format exists to answer a question a reader actually has — pages built to catch search traffic without answering anything do not ship.

Evidence standards

Two evidence tiers, two rules. Commercial facts — monthly prices, membership fees, dose-escalation charges, refund windows, state availability, pharmacy partners — must be read directly from the provider's published pages at verification time, supplemented by complaint databases, review platforms, and regulatory filings. Medical facts — mechanisms, efficacy figures, side effect rates, contraindications — must trace to FDA prescribing information or safety communications, peer-reviewed literature, or major-institution patient resources, and each page lists its sources in a references section a reader can independently check.

Authorship and how drafts get made

Pages carry the byline of Melissa Mathias, whose credentials are documented on her author page. We are direct about process: drafts are produced with research and writing tools that include AI software, working under the credited author's direction, and accountability for every published word sits with the author and this site's editors. A byline here signifies responsibility for the content — it does not transform the content into the author's clinical advice to you.

On clinician-review labels: a reviewer credit appears on a page only if a licensed clinician genuinely reviewed that page. No reviewer line means no independent clinical review happened — we consider displaying a fake reviewer to be fabricated endorsement, and we do not do it.

What a rating is

A rating is an editorial synthesis of the documented record — the published prices, the disclosed policies, the complaint history — weighted by the public rubric on How We Rank. It is not a lab result, not a first-hand trial of the product, and not a prediction of your outcome. Claims we could not verify from an independent source are labeled as such rather than absorbed into the score.

The commercial firewall

Affiliate commissions fund the site and are flagged by banner on every page carrying partner links, with the full mechanics in the advertising disclosure. Commissions determine which companies enter our coverage. Past that gate they have no vote: scores follow the rubric, critical findings publish and stay published, and a partner's money cannot move it up a list. Guides carry no affiliate links, period.

Freshness and corrections

Every page displays a last-updated date, and we treat that date as a factual claim in itself: it advances only when someone actually re-verified or materially revised the page. Re-dating stale content to look current is lying to readers and to search engines, and we do neither. Pricing pages get re-checked on a rotating schedule because prices decay fastest. Errors — whether we find them or a reader or provider does — get fixed promptly, with the date updated to reflect the re-check. Report one via the contact page.

Hard commitments

Anything unclear about how we work? Ask — this policy improves when readers poke at it.