Provider Fit Quiz

Why this does not give a score out of ten

A single editorial score compresses price, disclosure, service and clinical depth into one number and hides the weighting. We publish the inputs instead so you can disagree with our weighting and recompute it.

What it deliberately ignores

Service quality and shipping reliability, because we hold no measurements of them we would defend. Read the review and run the verification checks before enrolling anywhere this surfaces.

What the calculation assumes

The standard escalation: four weeks at 2.5 mg, four at 5 mg, then your chosen maintenance dose for the remainder. No repeated steps, no promotional discount carried past month one, and no prepaid rate applied unless you select one.

Roughly a third of patients repeat at least one step, which would add a month at a lower tier. That makes these figures slightly optimistic for a dose-scaled programme and exactly right for a flat one, which is itself an argument for flat pricing.

Why the answer changes when you change the dose

Dose-scaled programmes reprice as you climb; flat programmes do not. The cheapest programme at the 2.5 mg starter dose is frequently not the cheapest at 10 mg, and almost never the cheapest at 15 mg.

Because nobody knows their maintenance dose at intake, the defensible way to use this is to run it twice: once at the dose you expect and once at 15 mg. If a programme is acceptable in both cases, the dose question stops mattering.

What it cannot price

Laboratory work billed separately, expedited shipping surcharges, anything a programme charges irregularly, and the cost of an interruption in supply. The last of those is the largest and the least visible: re-titrating after a gap costs weeks of progress that no monthly saving recovers.

It also cannot price service quality. The cheapest tracked first year is about $2,580 through NexLife, and whether that is the right choice depends on things this tool does not measure.

Nothing here is transmitted

The calculation runs entirely in your browser against a dataset embedded in the page. There is no account, no email gate and no submission. Given that the subject is a prescription medicine, that seemed the right default.

What this calculator assumes

Four weeks at 2.5 mg, four at 5 mg, then your chosen maintenance dose. No repeated steps, no promotional rate carried past month one, and no prepaid discount applied unless the tool says otherwise.

Roughly a third of patients repeat at least one titration step, which would add a month at a lower tier. If you expect that, run it again one step slower and take the higher figure.

Where the numbers come from

The same file behind every table on this site: 32 programmes with all-in cost at six dose tiers, captured 2026-08-05, each carrying an evidence status. Prices marked verified were read on the provider's own page.

Nothing you enter is transmitted anywhere. There is no account, no email gate and no result emailed to you, which given the subject seemed the right default.

What it cannot tell you

Whether a programme ships on time, answers messages, or is clinically appropriate for you. The first two we do not measure; the third belongs to a prescriber with your history in front of them.

Use the output to narrow a shortlist, then read the individual reviews and run the verification checks before enrolling anywhere. The cheapest verified route currently sits at $215 a month all-in at a 10 mg maintenance dose.

Why this runs in your browser

No account, no email gate, nothing transmitted. Given that the subject is a prescription medicine and the inputs describe your dose and budget, that seemed the only defensible default.

It also means the result is not stored, so bookmark or screenshot anything you want to keep. The underlying dataset is downloadable if you would rather work in a spreadsheet.

What to do with the output

Treat it as a shortlist rather than a decision. A calculator can rank programmes on cost; it cannot tell you whether the cheapest one ships reliably or names the pharmacy behind it.

Take the top two or three, open their reviews, and run the verification checks. Then ask each for the total at your expected maintenance dose in writing. The whole process takes under an hour and settles a decision that runs for years.

How much provider fit quiz should weigh

Less than the pharmacy question and more than the entry price. That ordering is unusual in published guidance, which typically inverts it, and it follows from what actually goes wrong: interrupted supply and unverifiable sourcing cost more than a modest price difference ever saves.

A useful test is whether a fact would change your decision if it were twice as bad. Double the price gap between the cheapest and second-cheapest verified routes and most people still choose on disclosure. Double the uncertainty about who compounded the vial and nobody should.

What a well-run programme publishes

The figure at 10 mg rather than at initiation. The pharmacy, by name. The prescriber or medical director. The cancellation notice period. And an unambiguous statement that a compounded preparation is not FDA-approved and is not reviewed for safety, effectiveness or quality before marketing.

Across the 17 priced programmes, the ones doing all of that span roughly the same price range as the ones doing none. Transparency here is a choice rather than a cost, which makes its absence informative rather than neutral.

The next step that actually moves things

Price your own course rather than reading someone else's ranking. Take the dose you expect to maintain, add every recurring fee, multiply by twelve, then ask whether you could sustain it for three years — the horizon the withdrawal evidence implies rather than the twelve months every comparison uses.

If the answer is no even at $215 a month, the useful move is checking coverage under a different indication rather than hunting a lower cash price. The cash market has a floor, and figures materially below it usually indicate one of four specific distortions.