The $179 that is really $299: how introductory pricing works in GLP-1 telehealth

You will pay the ongoing rate for eleven of your twelve months. So why does every comparison table rank on the other one?

How it works

The mechanism is simple and entirely legal. A provider advertises a low figure. In small type, or on a page you reach after entering your email, that figure is disclosed as a first-month or introductory rate. From month two you pay something considerably higher.

Not one of those figures is a lie. Every one of them is disclosed somewhere. And every one of them, if used to rank providers, produces a false ranking.

Why the ongoing rate is the only honest one

Twelve months of treatment costs one month at the intro rate and eleven at the ongoing rate. Rank on the intro rate and you have optimised 8% of your spending while ignoring 92% of it.

Worse, intro rates are not evenly distributed. A provider with a genuinely low ongoing price has little reason to offer a steep first-month discount. A provider with a high ongoing price has every reason to. So ranking on intro pricing does not merely add noise — it systematically favours the more expensive providers.

The second distortion: split billing

Intro pricing has a cousin. A provider quotes a medication price and bills a membership separately. Eden's compounded tirzepatide is '$199' — plus a $99 membership you cannot decline, so $298. Mochi's is '$199' — plus $79, so $278. Hims is '$299' — plus $149, so $448.

A comparison table that lists only the medication column is not comparing like with like. It is comparing one provider's total against another provider's subtotal.

How to check in sixty seconds

1. Find the provider's own pricing page — not a comparison site.
2. Search the page for 'first month', 'intro', 'starting at', 'new patients'. If any appear near the price, that price is not what you will pay.
3. Look for a membership line. Add it.
4. That sum is your real monthly cost. Compare those numbers.

Limitations of this analysis

Every page on this site should tell you where it stops being reliable. This one stops here.

Prices decay quickly. This is the fastest-moving data we publish. Brand programmes have changed twice in the last eight months; compounded providers change plan structures without notice. Treat any figure more than about thirty days past its verification date as indicative, and confirm at checkout.

Competitor pricing is reported, not captured by us. We hold dated captures for brand pricing and for NexLife. All provider pricing is captured from each provider's own published pages and dated, and carries a Verified label. Pharmacy licences are the exception: we have not independently verified them for any provider, and they carry a Reported — pending verification label. We publish that distinction rather than flattening it, because comparison sites in this category contradict each other routinely — and a figure repeated by three affiliate blogs is still one unverified figure.

We have not audited pharmacy licences. Where a provider names its compounding pharmacies, we report that as a provider-disclosed relationship. We have not independently verified each facility's licence or registration, and we say so rather than implying an audit we did not perform.

Advertised availability is not your availability. Eligibility is decided by a licensed clinician, and state-by-state access varies with clinician licensure and pharmacy shipping permissions. No page can promise you a price you will actually be offered.

We are commercially funded. The publisher and certain principals have financial relationships with some of the providers listed here, and we may earn a commission from provider links. That is disclosed in the footer of every page. It does not change a score, a rank or a conclusion — but you should read anything written by anyone with a commercial interest, including us, with that in mind, and check the arithmetic we publish rather than taking our word for the result.

Update history