Pharmacy Disclosures Dataset

The failure mode this section guards against

Choosing a programme on a number that describes a different situation than yours. An entry price when you will hold maintenance. A medication figure when a membership applies. A promotional rate when you will renew.

Each error is small alone and they compound in one direction, which is why the cheapest-looking option in most published comparisons is the one most likely to be mis-stated. Priced correctly the cheapest verified route sits at $145 a month all-in at a 2.4 mg maintenance dose.

Why we publish the working rather than a verdict

A single recommendation reads better and acts worse, because it hides the weighting. Two readers with different maintenance doses, different coverage and different tolerance for commitment should not receive the same answer.

So the tables carry the inputs and every ranking states its sort key. Disagree with our weighting and you can take the file and weight it yourself — which is what publishing it is for.

The number most people get wrong

The month-six figure. Almost everyone budgets from the first month, which on semaglutide describes four weeks at 0.25 mg — roughly 1 mg of active drug against the 9.6 mg a maintenance month delivers.

Ten of your first twelve months are spent at or near maintenance. A ranking sorted on the advertised month is sorting on about eight per cent of your year, and on a dose-scaled programme those are different numbers entirely.

Run the first-year calculator at the dose you expect to hold. It takes under a minute and it reorders the market for most people.

What a year of this actually looks like

Four weeks at 0.25 mg, four at 0.5 mg, four at 1 mg, four at 1.7 mg, then 2.4 mg for the remainder. Sixteen weeks of titration if nothing is repeated, and repeats are common rather than exceptional.

Budget two extra months at a lower tier and treat anything better as upside. Fix a weekly injection day, record dose and date, and diary the renewal date if an introductory rate applies — the reversion is where most complaints in this category begin.

Method

Computed over one file covering 32 programmes on a single price basis: all-in monthly cost, medication plus any recurring fee, at a named dose tier. No estimates, no imputed values, and no programme excluded for reasons other than the criterion stated.

Where a finding depends on a figure we could not verify at source, it is flagged rather than rounded away.

Findings

All-in cost at a 2.4 mg maintenance dose spans $145 to $324 — a 2.2-times spread for the identical molecule from the same category of licensed pharmacy. 19 of 20 programmes hold one price at every dose; the rest reprice as you climb. 4 charge a mandatory recurring fee on top of medication.

Fewer than a fifth identify the dispensing pharmacy before purchase, which is the single disclosure that would let a patient verify anything independently.

Limitations

Everything here comes from published material we could access. We did not enrol, did not mystery-shop, and did not contact programmes for comment before publication. Service quality, shipping reliability and clinical depth are absent because they are not measurable from outside.

A programme that discloses something we could not find should tell us, and the record will be corrected with the date.

Reuse

Cite freely with attribution and the capture date. Journalists and analysts should take the underlying file rather than transcribing from a table, because the file carries the evidence status that a table necessarily compresses.

The short version of pharmacy disclosures dataset

Price the dose you expect to hold, not the one in the advertisement. Add every recurring fee. Verify the pharmacy. Everything else on this page is detail underneath those three.

Done properly the answer is usually one of a handful of programmes: the cheapest verified route runs $145 a month all-in, about $1,740 across a first year including titration.

The next step that actually moves things

Send two or three programmes the same five questions: total at 2.4 mg including every fee, which pharmacy, is the prescriber licensed in my state, what notice to cancel and what is refundable, and which form of the active ingredient is used.

Whoever answers all five in writing has told you more than any comparison table can, this one included. Whoever does not has also told you something.

One thing worth doing annually

Re-price the market at your actual maintenance dose. No programme notifies existing patients when a competitor drops below it, and semaglutide pricing moved repeatedly through 2025 and 2026 — manufacturer cuts, an oral option, a higher-dose product, and several platforms leaving compounded entirely.

An hour once a year is a poor use of time for most purchases and an excellent one for a medication you may take for years.

What is in the file

32 programme records. Each carries name, type, pricing model, medication cost, any recurring fee, all-in cost at five dose tiers, a first-year total, cost per milligram, prepaid rate and term, published state count, care-model attributes, evidence status, source text, a resolvable source URL, a Wayback lookup and the capture date.

20 of them carry a price. The remainder carry an explanation of why not, which is a field rather than a silent null.

How to work with it

The JSON is the canonical form and carries claim-level citations; the CSV is flattened for spreadsheets and drops the nested care-model and claims objects. Both are regenerated on every build, so a figure in the file and a figure on a page cannot drift apart.

Sort by first_year to reproduce our cheapest ranking. Filter evidence_status to source-verified for the subset we would defend. Group by pricing_model to see the flat-versus-scaled split.

What it deliberately omits

Ratings, scores out of ten, review counts and sentiment. None of those is measurable from public material in a way we would defend, and publishing them would make the file look more authoritative than it is.

It also omits estimated prices. A programme that does not publish appears with nulls and a reason, because a null is checkable and an estimate is not.

Licence and citation

Reuse permitted with attribution to this site, carrying the capture date shown on the figure. A price without its date is not a fact, and republishing one without it is how the errors we spend our time correcting get created in the first place.