Hormonally Balanced review

Hormonally Balanced is a genuine specialist: a private-pay concierge women's health practice based outside Boston, built around menopause and perimenopause hormone care, with a named chief medical officer and two named lead physician assistants. NAD⁺ sits on a small longevity menu alongside thyroid therapy and vitamin B12, which is a more coherent home for it than a weight-loss upsell, and the page says how it is given: by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection, with in-office infusions also mentioned. What has to be said plainly is that its NAD⁺ page claims DNA repair, telomere maintenance and genetic stability, and controlled human outcome trials support none of that.

Hormonally Balanced is a private-pay concierge women's health clinic headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts, delivering care by telehealth in seven states: Massachusetts, California, Texas, Florida, New York, Rhode Island and New Hampshire. Its practice is built around bioidentical hormone replacement for menopause and perimenopause, with a once-weekly weight-loss shot program that names semaglutide and tirzepatide, women's sexual-health treatment, and a longevity menu covering NAD⁺ therapy, thyroid therapy and vitamin B12. Its chief medical officer is Dr. Andrew Lenhardt, with Rachel Venable and Mary Stratos as co-lead physician assistants; current terms identify Dr. Andrew Lenhardt for consultations. The site also uses all-female-team language despite naming a male chief medical officer; confirm the treating clinician directly. Nothing is priced on the site — prospective patients call or submit a form.

Concierge and consultative rather than transactional, and organized around a single clinical specialism instead of a broad longevity catalog. That focus is the strongest thing here. A clinic that deals in women's hormone care is better placed to see NAD⁺ in the context of the rest of a patient's endocrine picture than a storefront selling vials to anyone who completes a quiz, and the practice publishes a working phone number, a headquarters address, a named clinical leadership team and a patient portal. It says it is LegitScript-certified, and it publishes the states it serves, with a stated aim of reaching all 50 by the end of 2027 — so check the current list rather than assuming nationwide coverage. The limits are commercial and informational. There is no published price for anything, so cost is discovered by contacting the clinic. No compounding pharmacy is named. And the NAD⁺ protocol is described only in outline: subcutaneous or intramuscular injection on the main page, with its FAQ also describing in-office intravenous infusions and a home self-injection program, but no dose, frequency or course length.

Nothing is published, so we are not quoting a figure. The clinic operates as a private-pay concierge practice and directs prospective patients to call or submit a form, and insurance coverage is not advertised. Its NAD⁺ FAQ says cost depends on the route, the dose and how often you are treated, and promises clear, upfront pricing without printing any. That structure is normal for concierge care and is not itself a criticism, but it does mean you cannot compare this against a priced NAD⁺ program without making contact first. Before that call, decide what you need to hear: what NAD⁺ costs per injection, per infusion or per course; what dose that covers; whether it is billed inside a hormone-care membership or separately; whether labs are included or extra; and what the cancellation terms are. Ask the same about the weight-loss program, since the clinic does not disclose whether its semaglutide or tirzepatide is brand-name or compounded — a distinction that changes both the price and the regulatory status of what you are buying.

Compounded; not FDA-approved. Prescription required only if a licensed provider finds it appropriate. The clinic does not name a compounding pharmacy, and it does not state whether its GLP-1 medications are brand-name or compounded products, which is a gap worth closing at the first consultation. On the evidence, the NAD⁺ framing on its own page needs answering directly rather than politely. The page describes NAD⁺ therapy as a proven approach to countering the effects of aging and attributes DNA repair, telomere support and genetic stability to it. Those are cellular-biology statements about the coenzyme, not demonstrated clinical outcomes of the therapy: injected NAD⁺ has no controlled human outcome trials, and the single human intravenous study was a pharmacokinetic pilot that found infused NAD⁺ clears from plasma quickly. The NAD⁺ forms with human trial data are the oral precursors NR and NMN, and what those trials show is that they reliably raise blood NAD⁺ — a raised biomarker, not a slowed rate of aging. On the hormone side the picture is different and better: bioidentical hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms has a real evidence base and real risk trade-offs that a specialist practice is the right setting to discuss. Individual results vary.