Editorial & Affiliate Policy

How we make money

When you click through to a telehealth brand from our site and sign up, the brand pays us an affiliate commission. This is disclosed on every page where affiliate links appear. We do not charge brands to be listed, do not accept payment for higher rankings, and do not sell editorial coverage.

Approximately 40% of brands we cover have affiliate programs we participate in. The remaining 60% we cover anyway, because the comparison portal is incomplete without them. Several non-affiliate brands rank higher than affiliates on our composite score — this is the test of editorial independence, not a marketing claim.

What affiliate relationships do NOT influence

• The composite 0–10 score and any of its 5 sub-axes
• Which brands appear on category hubs, comparison pages, or symptom-routed editor's picks
• The content of brand reviews, including pros, cons, and editorial criticisms
• Medical reviewer assessments (reviewers are paid flat fees and do not see commercial data)
• Ranking position on best-of lists

What affiliate relationships DO influence (transparently)

• Whether we have an outbound "Try [Brand]" affiliate button on a brand page. Non-affiliate brands link to their site without a tracking parameter; affiliate brands link with one.
• Time we spend on a brand's integration work (deeper data feeds, real-time pricing). We have more accurate pricing data for affiliate brands because we negotiate API access.
• Newsletter promotions and editorial features when commercially relevant — disclosed inline when so.

How our medical reviewers work

Every page with clinical content is reviewed by a board-certified clinician before publication. Reviewers are paid a flat fee per review — never a percentage of revenue or a per-conversion bonus. Reviewers have no visibility into which brands have affiliate relationships with us. Their job is to flag clinical inaccuracies, missing red flags, and unsupported claims. Their names, credentials, NPI numbers, and per-article conflict-of-interest disclosures appear in the byline of any content they review.

See our medical advisors for the full roster and credentials.

How we score brands

The composite 0–10 score is computed from 5 weighted sub-axes: pricing (20%), clinical infrastructure (25%), transparency (20%), user satisfaction (20%), value for money (15%). Each axis has explicit measurement criteria — no "vibes-based" scoring. Read the full methodology at how we review.

Re-verification is quarterly. Brands that materially change pricing, clinician roster, formulary, or regulatory status are re-scored immediately outside the quarterly cycle. The most recent score date appears on every brand page.

What we will never do

• Sell rankings, awards, or feature placements to brands
• Hide affiliate disclosures or use ambiguous language ("we may receive compensation")
• Publish content not reviewed by a board-certified clinician
• Make individual medical recommendations (we are informational, not clinical)
• Bury or minimize black-box warnings, FDA labeling risks, or important safety information
• Use stock testimonials or fabricated patient quotes; verified user outcomes always cite source
• Buy fake reviews or manipulate third-party rating platforms

How to challenge a score or correction request

If you believe a specific score is wrong, email editorial with the specific axis and the data point you'd challenge (e.g., "Brand X is scored 4/10 on transparency but they do publish their compounding pharmacy partner publicly — link"). We review monthly and re-score when warranted, with a public note on what changed.

For factual corrections on content: email with the article URL, the specific factual claim disputed, and the source for the correction. Corrections appear in an editorial-corrections footer on the page, dated.

For brand response to user reviews: see our process for verified brand replies on user-review threads.