State Availability Checker

Why availability is a licensing question

The prescribing clinician must hold a licence in your state and the dispensing pharmacy must be registered to ship into it. Gaps in a service map are almost always one of those two rather than a judgement about patients.

Treat every list as provisional

Including this one. Programmes change service maps without announcement, sometimes after you have enrolled. The binding answer appears at checkout.

What the calculation assumes

The standard escalation: four weeks at 0.20.5 mg, four at 0.5 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 0.20.5 mg starter dose is frequently not the cheapest at 2.4 mg, and almost never the cheapest at 2.4 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 2.4 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 $1,740 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 0.20.5 mg, four at 0.5 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 five 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 $145 a month all-in at a 2.4 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 this calculator assumes

Four weeks at each step from 0.25 mg through 1.7 mg, then your chosen maintenance dose for the remainder. No repeated steps, no promotional rate carried past month one, and no prepaid discount unless the tool says otherwise.

A large share of patients hold at a step longer than four weeks. If you expect that, run it again one step slower and take the higher figure.

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. The cheapest verified route currently sits at $145 a month all-in at a 2.4 mg maintenance dose.

How much state availability checker should weigh

Less than the dose question and more than the brand. 19 of 20 programmes hold one price from 0.25 mg to 2.4 mg; the rest reprice as you climb. Which group you choose changes a twelve-month total more than almost any other single decision.

That is because semaglutide titrates slowly. Sixteen weeks minimum to a maintenance dose, frequently longer for tolerability, and a dose-scaled programme reprices you at every step of it.

Flat pricing is worst value at the bottom of the ladder and best at the top, which makes it less a lower price than insurance against a decision your prescriber has not made yet.

What a well-run programme publishes

Its price at every strength. Its pharmacy. Its prescriber's licensure. Its cancellation notice period. And which form of the active ingredient it compounds from, because FDA has distinguished semaglutide base from salt forms and linked the salts to safety concerns.

That last one is specific to this molecule and almost never asked. Programmes that answer it precisely are telling you how closely they supervise their supply chain.

What the spread actually represents

All-in cost runs $145 to $324 a month for the same molecule from the same category of licensed pharmacy. That gap is not the medicine. It is overhead, clinical wrap, sourcing and margin, plus how aggressively a programme is willing to structure its fees.

4 of 20 charge a mandatory recurring fee and 19 hold one price at every strength. Those two facts explain most of the spread, and neither appears in a headline figure.

Where our numbers could be wrong

A programme changed its price after our capture date. A third-party figure we recorded does not survive checking. A promotional rate was published as a standing one. Or a programme publishes something we could not find.

All four are live risks and the first is near-certain over time. Every figure carries its capture date and a link to the source we read, so the check takes about two minutes and does not require trusting us.

Why the cheapest entries are the least reliable

Four distortions push in the same direction: a promotional first month quoted as a standing rate, a prepaid bundle rate quoted as monthly, a medication figure that excludes a mandatory membership, and occasionally a different molecule's price in the wrong column.

Every one of those makes a programme look cheaper than it is, which is why the bottom of any published table is where errors concentrate. It is also why we mark which figures we read at the provider and which we did not, rather than presenting one confident list.

Where we have been able to check an unconfirmed figure against a provider's own page, the number usually moved upward.

How to sanity-check any figure you find elsewhere

Three questions. What dose does it describe? Does it include every recurring fee? And when was it captured? A price failing any of the three is not comparable to the numbers here, and most published figures fail at least one.

Semaglutide makes this worse than most categories because the same molecule sells under several brands at prices spanning more than fifteenfold. 'Semaglutide costs X' is not a sentence that can be true without naming the product and the channel.