How the Credibility Index is built.

A transparent, independently reproducible rating system for U.S. medspas, aesthetic medicine practices, and DTC aesthetic platforms. Six public data sources. Five weighted subscores. Quarterly refresh. Practices cannot pay to improve their grade — the methodology and source data are published in full.

/ 01

Guiding Principles.

The Aesthetic Credibility Index exists to answer a single question: which medspas and aesthetic practices have the credentials, safety record, and regulatory standing to treat you safely?

  1. Public records only. Every input is sourced from state medical board enforcement records, FTC consumer complaints, federal court filings on PACER, BBB profiles, state licensing board records, and NASAESTHETICS' proprietary patient survey. Methodology can be independently reproduced.
  2. Practices cannot pay. No rated practice has paid, can pay, or has been offered the opportunity to pay for inclusion, exclusion, or modification of their grade.
  3. Quarterly refresh. Grades update every 90 days; material changes are timestamped.
  4. Subscore transparency. Every grade decomposes into five public subscores.
  5. Right of correction. Practices may submit documented corrections via published Appeals process.
/ 02

The Six Data Sources.

The Index is constructed from six independent public-record sources. No single source can move a grade by more than 35%.

/ Source 01

State Medical Board Records

Each U.S. state's medical board enforcement records — physician disciplinary actions, license suspensions, consent orders affecting rated practices.

/ Source 02

FTC Consumer Complaint Database

U.S. Federal Trade Commission consumer complaints against medspas, aesthetic platforms, and DTC providers. Normalized to complaints-per-patient-volume.

/ Source 03

State Attorney General Records

Active and settled enforcement actions affecting rated practices across all 50 states. Deceptive-practice consent orders, advertising-claim disputes, sales-practice settlements.

/ Source 04

PACER Federal Court Filings

Federal court dockets indexed via PACER. Malpractice cases, class actions over outcome disputes, FDA-related litigation involving rated practices.

/ Source 05

BBB Profile Data

Better Business Bureau profile data — letter grades, complaint volume, resolution rates — normalized to a 0-100 scale.

/ Source 06

NASAESTHETICS Patient Survey

Anonymized opt-in patient survey distributed to NASAESTHETICS community members across rated practices. Methodology and response rates published in the Annual Report.

/ 03

The Five Subscores.

Practitioner Credentialing

The quality and depth of the medical credentials behind the practice. Board certification of physicians (ABPS for plastic surgery, ABD for dermatology, ABFPRS for facial plastic surgery), RN/PA injector credentials and tenure, MD medical director involvement, and the structural depth of the supervisory model.

Injury / Complication Rate

Documented patient adverse events, complications, and outcomes that did not match clinical or marketing claims. Sourced from malpractice court filings, state medical board enforcement, and FDA Medical Device Reports where applicable to specific procedures.

Regulatory Track Record

The practice's history of state medical board enforcement, state attorney general consent orders, FTC enforcement, and FDA-related regulatory action. Includes both formal enforcement and documented inquiries.

Pricing Transparency

The clarity of pricing disclosure, package-pricing honesty, and the absence of aggressive sales pressure tactics. Includes consultation-fee disclosure, package-pricing transparency, refund-policy fairness, and patient-recourse pathways.

Aftercare Quality

The structural commitment to patient follow-up, complication management, and outcome support. Includes post-procedure follow-up protocols, complication-management infrastructure, and patient-communication quality through the recovery period.

/ 04

Weighting & Scoring.

Subscore Dimension
Weight
Practitioner Credentialing
25%
Injury / Complication Rate
25%
Regulatory Track Record
20%
Pricing Transparency
15%
Aftercare Quality
15%
Composite Score
100%

Why these weights? Practitioner Credentialing and Injury Rate are heaviest because they correlate most strongly with documented patient harm and the largest single category of regulatory and litigation exposure. Regulatory Track Record follows because pattern matters. Pricing Transparency and Aftercare Quality round out the composite as operational quality factors.

Independent data. Independent standards.

The Aesthetic Credibility Index is published under a methodology that is reproducible from public-record sources. Practices cannot pay to improve grades. The data is licensed to institutional users via the API.

Browse the Index Institutional API