About HRT Picks
HRT Picks is an independently operated publication comparing hormone-care telehealth programs for US readers. Iacob Pastina is responsible for its research and editorial decisions. He is an independent researcher, not a medical professional. We compare public prices, treatment options and care terms; we do not provide treatment or medical advice.
Our shopping shortlist covers approved affiliate partners. Reviews identify the sources, check dates and unresolved details behind a comparison. A public-information score measures disclosure, not clinical quality or patient outcomes. The editorial policy and provider evidence audit explain how to judge the work.
What does HRT Picks cover?
Women's menopause HRT is the homepage focus. Men's testosterone replacement therapy has a separate TRT comparison. Reviews identify each provider's treatment scope; separately labeled erectile dysfunction programs do not establish a TRT offer. Coverage is not a complete survey of the market, and a provider's listing does not establish eligibility for a particular patient.
What does the score measure?
We publish a public-information score out of 10. Five equal criteria earn 0, 1 or 2 points from dated source records. This measures the clarity and completeness of information, not clinical quality or outcomes.
- Treatment details (0–2): Two points for a clearly identified treatment and route; one for partial or conflicting product information.
- Payment clarity (0–2): Two points when the selected plan's first payment, renewal, term and required fees are clear; one when only part of the bill is established.
- Care process (0–2): Two points for named clinical responsibility, eligibility and follow-up information; one when the process is only partly described.
- Pharmacy disclosure (0–2): Two points for an identified dispensing pharmacy for the reviewed treatment; one for a general pharmacy network or local-fill choice.
- Cancellation and refunds (0–2): Two points for clear, relevant cancellation timing and refund rules; one for partial rules or unresolved conflicts.
The score audit publishes each criterion's reason and source alongside the total.
Does affiliate payment affect the comparison?
Our shopping shortlist contains approved affiliate partners. We may earn a commission on a qualifying signup. Older research pages can remain available for providers outside that shortlist; coverage is not a complete survey of the market.
Payment does not raise a score. Objective rankings sort by the displayed score. Promotional placements can feature an approved partner separately from that order and must disclose the distinction. The commercial rules explain how coverage and featuring work.
Which source should I use for my question?
- For a provider's specific plan, use its review and dated source record. The record distinguishes advertised terms from an independently confirmed detail and identifies unresolved costs.
- For costs across plans, use the HRT price index, menopause HRT cost guide or TRT cost guide. Billing period and medication inclusion matter when comparing a membership with a treatment package.
- For insurance, use the HRT or TRT coverage guide with your own plan documents. Visit coverage and pharmacy coverage are separate; a guide cannot confirm your benefits.
- For clinical context, follow the labels, regulatory records and research linked in the safety guide. An affiliate review is not an individual prescribing assessment.
- For patch supply, use the dated shortage sources and patch tracker. A supply bulletin or published medication format does not verify inventory at your pharmacy.
How current is the information?
Each review names the date, method and limits of its source check. Checking a provider's advertised price does not verify its checkout, clinical care or every statement it makes. A focused price correction does not mean the whole provider has been reassessed.
On September 29, 2026 we replaced legacy ratings that could not be reproduced from their evidence calculations. The score audit now publishes every criterion, reason, source and total. Missing public information is not evidence of poor care. Retained A–F grades remain separate historical disclosure assessments.
Who is responsible for the research?
Editorial responsibility sits with Iacob Pastina. He is not a medical professional. HRT Picks evaluates public evidence and provider claims; it does not provide care. The editorial policy describes the source checks, and the corrections policy explains how to report an error.
AI-assisted tools help with research and drafting. The cited original source remains the evidence for a claim; an AI draft or summary is not an independent medical review. Editorial responsibility remains with Iacob Pastina.
How can I contact HRT Picks?
Spot something wrong? Email editorial@hrtpicks.com.