Corrections

Email editor@doseworth.com. Put the compound or the provider in the subject line so it can be triaged quickly. The report is most useful when it contains four things:

1. The page. The URL of the board or review the figure appears on.
2. The row. Which provider, and which number on that row — advertised, walk-away, or the annual total.
3. What you saw instead. The figure on the provider's own page, and the URL where it appears. A screenshot helps, particularly if the price sits behind a checkout step.
4. Any condition attached to it. Whether the price you saw needed a prepay commitment, a promotional code, a first-order discount, or a particular dose tier. This is the single most common source of an apparent discrepancy.

You do not need to be a customer, a provider, or right. A report that turns out to be a misunderstanding is still useful, because it usually means the page was unclear.

The procedure is the same for a reader's report and a provider's complaint.

1. Acknowledge. We aim to reply within three business days, even if only to say it is being looked at.
2. Re-capture from the source. We reload the provider's own pricing or checkout page in a clean session — no stored cookies, nothing carried over — and read the number again. Not an aggregator, not the report itself.
3. Re-run the arithmetic. If the price moved, the walk-away figure and the annual total move with it, on the provider's actual billing cycle.
4. Publish. The row is updated and re-stamped with a new capture date, and the page carries a note if a correction is involved.
5. Reply. We tell you what we found, including when the finding was that the page was already right.

Price reports go to the front of the queue ahead of everything else, because they are the only class of error that costs a reader money directly.

Both change a number on a page. Only one of them is us admitting a mistake, and blurring them would make the distinction useless.

• A correction means we were wrong. We read a figure incorrectly, missed a condition attached to it, annualised on twelve payments when the provider bills thirteen times, cited the wrong source, or mischaracterised something. This is our error, and it is labelled as one.
• An update means the world changed. The provider raised its price, restructured its plans, ended a promotion or altered its billing cycle after our capture. The old figure was accurate on its capture date; it is simply no longer current. This is recorded as a re-capture with a new date, not as a correction.

We do not silently swap a number. When a page is corrected, the correction is visible on the page itself and states what was wrong, what it now says, and the date the change was made. The page's last-updated stamp moves at the same time.

The old figure is not scrubbed out of the record where it is material — if a board said a provider's walk-away price was one number and it was in fact another, both appear in the note, because “this page changed” is not a useful disclosure unless you can see what it changed from. A trivial fix — a typo, a broken link, a wrong label with no effect on a figure — is repaired without a note.

Providers are welcome to write in, and often they are right about a detail. Two things are not on the table.

We do not remove accurate material because it is unflattering. A company can dispute a fact — a figure, a date, a term, a quotation — and we will check it. A company cannot dispute a conclusion drawn correctly from facts that hold up. That a four-weekly billing cycle produces thirteen charges a year is arithmetic, not an opinion open to negotiation.

We do not delete FDA warning-letter records. Those pages are built from the agency's own published correspondence, quoted and linked to fda.gov. If a status changes — a letter closed out, a response logged — we update the record and re-date the check. We do not take the record down, and we equally do not let it imply more than it says: the standing policy on what a warning letter is and is not is in the editorial policy.

The same address takes everything else: a citation that does not support the claim beside it, a dead source link, a provider detail that is out of date, a regulatory description that has been overtaken, or a page that reads as medical guidance when it should not. Tell us which page and what is wrong with it.

editor@doseworth.com — corrections, disputes, and anything about how a figure on Doseworth was arrived at. Related: editorial policy, affiliate disclosure, terms of use.