Editorial Policy

Scores are based on evidence. At equal displayed scores, active affiliate partners are listed first. Every clinic has a distinct, consecutive rank.

Every clinic gets a 1–10 number from a fixed rubric: four weighted criteria, applied the same way to every listing. The inputs are evidence we've personally checked: a live price, a documented policy, a claim we could confirm. Nothing here is a gut call, and nothing here is for sale.

• Real monthly cost25%
• Prescriber & follow-up30%
• What they can prescribe20%
• What they disclose25%

When we can't verify a price, we don't score it

Price & Value is meant to measure what you will actually pay. For 12 of the 29 clinics we rank we cannot verify that, so we leave the criterion unscored rather than publish a number we can't stand behind. Their price is still shown. We withhold the score, not the information.

• System Labs. Its sermorelin page contradicts itself: the header says “$175 $89 /first mo.”, while the FAQ further down the same page says “First month is $109. After that, $219 per month.” We do not pick between them.
• Luvo Health. Two figures that do not reconcile: $199 per four weeks on the pricing page, “starting at $27/week” on the product page.
• bmiMD. Blocks automated access, so the price shown cannot be re-confirmed weekly.
• Hone Health. Its advertised monthly price applies, in their words, “when included as part of a comprehensive weight loss plan”, on top of a separate membership fee and a lab panel. That is not a comparable all-in figure, so the price criterion is not scored for it.

None of the clinics above is ranked on a figure we cannot support. bmiMD is waiting for a manual check; Hone Health is ranked, but with the price criterion taken out of the calculation and the reason stated on its page.

We replaced it with a rule that cannot do that: an unscored criterion is credited at the lowest score that clinic earned on any criterion we could assess. Where we have no evidence, we extend no benefit of the doubt. Because a clinic's lowest score is always at or below its own average, this can only lower or hold a score. Never raise it. That is arithmetic, not a promise you have to take on trust.

Price has one further rule (since 14 October 2026), and it depends on why we could not score it. If a clinic publishes no price at all, its price is credited at the lower of two figures: the lowest price score of any clinic we list that does publish one, or that clinic's own lowest score elsewhere. Not publishing a price can therefore never move a clinic up. If a clinic does publish prices but in a shape we cannot compare fairly with all-in prices, for example a membership with medication billed on top, its price is credited at its own lowest score, as above.

One consequence we accept on purpose: a clinic with an unscored criterion can still finish above a fully-scored clinic that simply scored badly. The rule governs how a gap is credited; it does not turn a gap into a finding.

Why we dropped “User Experience” in August 2026

Until 2026-08-28 this rubric had a fifth criterion, User Experience, weighted 15%. We removed it, and it is worth explaining why rather than quietly renumbering.

It was not measuring anything the other criteria weren't already measuring. Across our 29 clinics it correlated 0.75 with Clinical Oversight and 0.78 with Transparency & Trust, and 18 of the 29 scored identically on Clinical Oversight and User Experience. Once we controlled for the fact that well-run clinics tend to score well on everything, it was the only pair in the rubric that stayed correlated. Every other pairing fell to roughly zero.

The second reason matters more. Once you remove what belongs to Clinical Oversight (support access) and to Transparency (disclosure quality), what is left is app polish, shipping speed, packaging and satisfaction guarantees. Claims a clinic makes about itself that we cannot independently verify. This is a health rubric built on documented evidence. Scoring vendor marketing copy and calling it a measurement was the wrong thing to do, so we stopped.

Its 15% moved to Clinical Oversight (+5, where the real signal lived) and Transparency & Trust (+10, our most verifiable criterion). This changed the ranking position of 20 of 29 clinics, by at most four places. Patient experience still matters. We now cover it in the review text, where it cannot masquerade as a number.

What each transparency score means

A score is only useful if you know what earns it. These are the bands we actually apply for Transparency & Trust, the criterion that most often separates two clinics at a similar price, with real examples from our own ranking, including the ones that score badly.

One distinction does most of the work here: a disclosed discount for a longer commitment is normal and does not cost a clinic points, but a price that rises after month one without being disclosed caps a clinic at 6.5. We have applied that wrongly before. In August 2026 we scored a clinic as though its published prepay plan were a hidden step-up, and corrected it once we verified the live page.

The other four criteria are applied from the same documented evidence but do not yet have published bands. We would rather say that than imply a precision we haven't written down.

FDA warning letters. Scored, not just disclosed

Until 2026-08-30, an FDA warning letter was shown to readers but never moved a score. A documented policy choice, not an oversight. We reversed it. A provider with an openFDA warning letter alleging false or misleading marketing claims about the medication it's reviewed for here has its Transparency & Trust score capped at 4.0. The same “active trust flags on a medical product” band above, not a new number invented for this rule. The cap applies only while the letter is open. FDA does post close-out letters once it accepts a company's corrective action; if that happens for a provider we track, the cap lifts and the score moves. Logged on the changelogautomatically, the same way a price change is, because a score moving with nothing nearby to explain it is exactly the kind of thing this page exists to prevent. The rule applies identically whether a provider pays us a referral fee or not. It reads FDA's own database, not our payout ledger.

Where it applies today. 2 providers we rank hold an open FDA warning letter: Maximus and Sprout Health. Each review shows the letter, and each Transparency & Trust score sits at or under the cap.

A letter limits the score, not the listing. Since 24 October 2026 an open FDA warning letter no longer changes whether an approved affiliate partner gets links or where it appears. A partner with an open letter carries the same PICK label, buttons and partner placements as any other partner. The letter stays on its review and the cap stays in its score.

Regulatory and legal actions. The same cap, a sibling rule

Ported from our sister site (trt-picks.com) the same day it was built there. A federal or state enforcement body (FTC, a state Attorney General, DOJ, or equivalent) filing a lawsuit or reaching a settlement that confirms or alleges a provider deceived consumers about billing, cancellation, or data handling caps that provider's Transparency & Trust score at 4.0. The identical ceiling and rationale as the FDA rule above: a government body formally saying a provider wasn't straight with consumers is exactly what this criterion measures. One cap per provider, whether it comes from an FDA letter, a regulatory action, or both. It does not stack.

It is not symmetric with the FDA rule in one respect, deliberately: FDA maintains a public database we can check on a schedule, so that cap lifts automatically on a closeout. No equivalent database exists for AG settlements or FTC/DOJ suits, so a cap from this rule never lifts automatically. Only a human, after independently confirming an active suit was dismissed or a settlement's remediation was actually carried out, lifts it, logged the same way as any other correction.

This rule has not yet capped anyone on this site. We hold no government enforcement findings (no FTC or DOJ action, no state Attorney General settlement) against any provider we currently rank. When we do, the cap and the score movement will be published here with the date of the action, because a penalty already paid years ago is a different fact from an open case, and a reader deserves to weigh it as such.

Applied: worked examples

Worked examples are missing here on purpose. The policy above is inherited from a sister site, and so were the two case studies that used to sit in this section. A BBB F-rating downgrade and a suspended-reviews finding. Both happened to clinics on that site, not this one. Leaving them in would have made this page describe an enforcement history we do not have, complete with links to reviews that do not exist here. They are removed rather than reworded. When we downgrade a provider on this site, the record of it goes here.

A suspended Trustpilot rating. A new evidence category

Added 2026-08-31, alongside a process fix it depends on: before recording any Trustpilot figure, we now confirm the profile's domain actually matches the provider's own site. Not just that the brand name matches. Two providers we track sit one character apart from an unrelated company's domain (ulo.com/ulo.co), and we had already corrected one live mixup (healthrx.online, a different company from healthrx.com) before catching a third mid-review: the only “Luvo Health” result on Trustpilot belongs to an unrelated supplement brand (luv.health), not Luvo Health Inc.

Price verification

We run an automated weekly check (via GitHub Actions) against each clinic’s own live pricing page. Every review shows that provider’s actual verification status. "Verified" with a date if we’ve confirmed it recently, or "Last confirmed" if it’s due for reconfirmation. Any price that goes 45 days without being reconfirmed automatically switches from verified to unverified rather than continuing to display as current.

Integrity

Whether a clinic pays us a referral fee is public information (see the affiliate disclosure) and it stays out of the rubric entirely. An unpaid listing and a partner listing go through the identical checklist. Mistakes get corrected on the record, on the changelog, not quietly. Think we got something wrong? Show us the evidence and we'll re-check it.

Corrections and tips

Email contact@mylongevitypicks.com to report an error, flag a price that has moved, or tell us about a clinic we should be looking at. Useful things to include: the page you are looking at, what it says, and what you believe the correct figure is. A link to the clinic's own page is the strongest evidence there is, because that is the same source we check against.

We publish our own corrections rather than editing quietly, so a report that holds up ends on the changelog with the date and what changed. If you tell us we got something wrong and we disagree, we will say so and explain why.