How TelehealthTech researches and evaluates white-label telehealth platforms, clinician networks, and digital pharmacy infrastructure.
Our goal is to give operators a realistic view of each platform. That same approach underpins our vendor reviews, “Best-for” lists, and how-to guides. To do that, we use a repeatable process:
We review public materials: websites, docs, FAQs, pricing pages, support articles, implementation guides, and public regulatory/compliance information where available.
When possible, we go through demos, sandbox environments, sign-up flows, and example implementations to understand the real user experience.
We talk to teams who have evaluated or implemented the platform—founders, ops leaders, clinicians, and marketers—to understand how it performs in practice.
We give vendors an opportunity to explain their product, highlight strengths, and correct factual errors. We're interested in clarity, not gotchas.
We track major product updates, pricing changes, policy shifts, and headline regulatory or enforcement actions that may affect how a platform should be used.
We generally look at each platform across a consistent set of dimensions:
Telehealth modalities supported (async/sync), specialties, visit flows, integrations, reporting, configurability, and extensibility.
Network composition (MDs, NPs, PAs), coverage by state, specialties, and any specific restrictions or focus areas.
Whether the platform provides integrated pharmacy solutions, compounding options, distribution logistics, and how these are structured.
Stated certifications and frameworks (e.g., HIPAA-related controls, SOC 2, ISO), plus how the model is typically implemented from a risk perspective.
Time-to-launch expectations, integration surfaces (APIs, webhooks, SDKs, embedded widgets, no-code options), and typical internal resourcing required.
How platforms generally charge (per visit, per member, per provider, SaaS fee, revenue-share, etc.), plus any material minimums or commitments.
Quality of documentation, support channels, onboarding support, and signals of operational maturity.
We end every review by stating who the platform is best for, where it shines, and where it's a weaker fit compared to alternatives.
We avoid simplistic 5-star ratings. Instead, we:
The goal is not to declare a single “best” platform, but to help you quickly narrow the field based on your specific model, constraints, and risk tolerance.
We aim to keep editorial and commercial work clearly separated:
If we have any material relationship with a platform discussed in a piece, we'll state that relationship prominently.
Methodology pages get outdated too. We periodically revisit this page to reflect how our process evolves as the market changes.
