Write for us — health
This is a life insurance site, so the health writing we publish has a specific angle: what a condition means when somebody is assessing how long you are likely to live.
That is an unusual lens and it is where we need clinical writers. A cardiologist can explain what an ejection fraction actually indicates. An endocrinologist can explain why the trend in an A1c series matters more than any single reading. Underwriters make decisions on exactly those numbers, usually without the clinical context, and readers arrive here trying to bridge that gap.
Who we publish
Practising clinicians in specialties that intersect with mortality risk — cardiology, endocrinology, oncology, pulmonology, nephrology, hepatology, infectious disease, psychiatry.
Clinical researchers who can translate survival data, staging systems and prognostic indicators into plain language.
Nurses, physician assistants and clinical educators who spend their days explaining diagnoses to patients and are good at it.
Public health and epidemiology professionals working on mortality and population risk.
Patient advocates with genuine subject expertise in a specific condition.
Credentials matter here more than anywhere else on the site. Health content on a financial-decisions site is about as high-stakes as web publishing gets, and we treat it that way.
What we are looking for
- What a specific test, value or staging system actually measures, and what it predicts
- Why two people with the same diagnosis can have very different prognoses
- How treatment adherence and control change a risk picture over time
- What "in remission" means clinically, and why the definition varies by cancer type
- Which complications change a condition's trajectory, and on what timescale
- How a condition's outlook has changed over the past decade — HIV is the obvious example, but not the only one
Around 1,200–2,000 words, written for an intelligent reader with no clinical training.
What we reject
Anything that reads as medical advice. We explain how conditions are assessed. We never tell a reader what to do about their own health, and we do not publish pieces that do.
Claims without citations. Clinical assertions need a source — a study, a guideline, a registry. This is the rejection reason that comes up most often, and we do not make exceptions for it because the subject matter does not allow us to.
Statistics without a denominator. "Survival rates have improved dramatically" is not publishable. What population, what period, measured how.
Supplement, treatment or clinic promotion. Any piece existing to drive readers toward a product or practice.
Unlabelled AI output. Our AI content policy explains how we use these tools ourselves. Model-generated clinical claims presented as expertise, or fabricated citations, are an automatic and permanent rejection. We check the references.
Accuracy and review
Health pieces carry a named author with credentials, a review date, and a standing note that the content is general information rather than medical advice.
We may ask a second clinician to review a piece before publication. We may also ask you to soften a claim we cannot verify — not because we doubt you, but because a reader making a financial decision deserves to know which parts are settled and which are your clinical judgement. Both are welcome; they just get labelled differently.
Links and disclosure
Citations to research, guidelines and registries are encouraged and are the main thing that gets a piece accepted.
Links to a practice, clinic, product or service you have an interest in are marked rel="sponsored" or rel="nofollow", without exception. Any commercial or financial interest in the subject is disclosed in a line at the top of the piece.
Placement options and turnaround
Clinical contributions are free. If your piece is accepted on merit you pay nothing — and given the subject matter, clinical writing is the category we most want and least want to see monetised.
| Placement | What you get | Review | Turnaround |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical contribution | Full article, byline with credentials, dofollow citations to research | Full editorial review, may include second clinical reader | 2–4 weeks |
| Link insertion | One contextual link added to an existing relevant article | Relevance check | 3–5 days |
| Sponsored article | Article published with a sponsored label and disclosure line | Accuracy and compliance review | 5–7 days |
| Sponsored feature | Sponsored article plus placement in the related-links block on matching condition pages | Accuracy and compliance review | 7–10 days |
Commercial placements always carry a visible sponsored label, a disclosure line and rel="sponsored" on commercial links. We do not run sponsored content that makes a clinical claim about a product.
Rates for commercial tiers on request through the contact page.
Topics we would commission tomorrow
- What an A1c series actually tells you that a single reading does not
- Ejection fraction explained for non-clinicians, and what it predicts over 10 and 20 years
- Why "in remission" means different things in breast, prostate and lung cancer
- COPD staging: what GOLD stages describe, and what changes prognosis within a stage
- HIV in 2026 — viral suppression, adherence, and life expectancy against the general population
- The clinical difference between insulin-dependent and oral-managed type 2 diabetes
- What microalbuminuria signals, and why it changes a diabetic risk picture
- Sleep apnea: treated versus untreated, and what compliance data actually shows
- Why cholesterol ratios predict better than total cholesterol
- Post-stroke recovery timelines and what the first 24 months indicate
- What a cardiac stress test result means outside a cardiology clinic
- Depression, anxiety and mortality risk: what the evidence actually supports
How to pitch
Send a short pitch through the contact page with "Health guest post pitch" in the subject: the argument, your credentials, and the sources you plan to cite.
Reading how underwriting works first will tell you which parts of your specialty are actually load-bearing for this audience, and will make your pitch considerably stronger.
Questions we get asked
Do I need to be a physician to contribute? No. Nurses, PAs, clinical educators, researchers and epidemiologists all write well on this subject, sometimes better than physicians because explaining things to non-specialists is already the job. What we need is verifiable expertise and citable sources.
How do you handle medical accuracy? Every clinical claim needs a citation to a study, guideline or registry. We may ask a second clinician to review before publishing. We will also ask you to distinguish between settled evidence and your clinical judgement — both are publishable, they just get labelled differently.
Will you edit my clinical content? We edit for clarity and structure, and we will query anything unsourced. We do not alter clinical substance without your sign-off, and you approve the final version before it publishes.
Can I write about a condition I treat but do not research? Yes, and practice experience is often more useful than research familiarity for this audience. Say which is which — "in my practice I see" reads differently from "the evidence shows", and we will ask you to mark the distinction.
Do you publish anything that could be read as medical advice? No. Everything carries a standing disclaimer that it is general information, and we reject or rewrite anything that tells a reader what to do about their own health.
Will my article be linked from the condition pages? Yes, if it is relevant. Accepted clinical pieces are filed under the matching condition and surface automatically in the guides block on that condition's page, which is where most of the readership will find them.
Do you accept AI-assisted drafts? On the same terms as everything else, set out in our AI content policy. A model may help you draft. It may not be the source of a clinical claim, and we verify citations. Fabricated references end the relationship permanently — on health content the stakes are not negotiable.