Is it illegal to get a GLP-1 prescription from an online telehealth service in Australia?

No — telehealth consultations are a legitimate prescribing pathway in Australia, including for GLP-1 medications, provided the prescribing doctor conducts an adequate clinical assessment. The concern raised by this study is not legality but adequacy: whether a brief text-based or video consult can reliably identify contraindications, screen for relevant comorbidities, and establish the ongoing monitoring relationship that safe prescribing requires. The RACGP's position is that telehealth-only services should meet the same clinical standards as face-to-face consultations. Whether a specific platform meets that standard is something you would need to assess on the specifics — the research finding is that most do not.

What should a thorough GLP-1 consultation cover before I get a prescription?

A thorough assessment before starting a GLP-1 medication should include your full medical history — particularly any personal or family history of thyroid disease (specifically medullary thyroid carcinoma or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2), any history of pancreatitis or significant gastrointestinal conditions, your cardiovascular history, a review of your current medications for interactions, and a conversation about your relationship with food and eating. Weight history, previous weight management attempts, and relevant metabolic testing (HbA1c, fasting glucose, lipid panel, kidney function) should also be part of the picture. Monitoring once you are on a GLP-1 medication includes periodic review of weight, side effects — particularly nausea and gastrointestinal symptoms — and for some patients, ongoing metabolic testing. If your consultation did not cover most of this territory, it is worth raising those questions with your prescriber or seeking a second assessment from your regular GP.

Online GLP-1 prescribing: 91% of platforms skipped full assessment

What just happened

A new study published in JAMA — reported by RACGP newsGP on 11 July 2026 — has quantified something many Australian GPs have already been noticing in their practices: the direct-to-consumer telehealth model for GLP-1 medication prescribing is, in a significant proportion of cases, not delivering adequate medical assessment before dispensing.

Using a simulated patient with deliberately incomplete medical information, US researchers examined 49 direct-to-consumer telehealth websites that offer GLP-1 weight-loss medications. The results were striking:

91.8% of platforms issued a GLP-1 prescription despite the simulated patient providing incomplete medical history
Only 13 of the 49 sites required a video consultation before prescribing; just three required a phone call
Several platforms issued prescriptions “within five minutes or less”
Multiple prescriptions were observed coming from the same individual prescriber across different platforms, suggesting minimal individual patient engagement

RACGP President Dr Michael Wright responded directly: “When providing care for people managing excess weight and obesity, you need a whole-person approach, and just giving people a script over the phone really isn’t providing the comprehensive healthcare that people deserve.”

The study focused on US platforms. But the RACGP’s position statement on telehealth-only services has long flagged that the same prescribing model — and in many cases the same platforms — operates in Australia. The study gives the concern numbers.

The both-and

The appeal is completely understandable

GLP-1 medications — semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy), tirzepatide (Mounjaro) — are difficult to access through conventional channels. PBS subsidised access requires a specific diagnosis. Private costs can reach $300–400 per month depending on the product and dose. GP appointments are not always easily scheduled. Endocrinologist and obesity specialist waitlists in Australia have been stretched since GLP-1 medications became front-page news.

Against that backdrop, a telehealth platform promising a same-day prescription at a reduced cost for a compounded formulation is not attracting irresponsible patients. It is attracting patients who are motivated, who have read the evidence, and who have concluded that the conventional clinical pathway is out of reach. Understanding that context does not excuse the model — but it matters for any GP who wants to have a productive conversation with a patient who has been using one.

What “full assessment” actually involves — and why it matters

The clinical concern is not procedural box-ticking. GLP-1 receptor agonists carry meaningful contraindications and clinically significant interactions that a five-minute text-based consult cannot reliably surface.

Contraindications include a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 — conditions that a patient may not know are relevant, and will not volunteer if not asked. Caution is also warranted in active pancreatitis, significant gastrointestinal disease, and severe renal impairment. Beyond contraindications, eating disorder history has emerged as a specific screening gap: recent JAMA Psychiatry research covered by newsGP in June 2026 found that among adults in eating disorder clinics, 32% had used a GLP-1 medication, with a proportion using it to deepen restriction rather than manage weight. Screening for this is not standard on most online platforms.

Drug interactions also require clinical awareness. Concurrent sulfonylurea use, insulin regimes, and certain cardiovascular medications all need to be factored in before initiating a GLP-1 agent. The compounded formulations available through some online platforms — not TGA-approved products — introduce additional uncertainties around dose accuracy and sterility that do not apply to the manufacturer-verified products available through pharmacies.

What this means for prescriber accountability

The study is primarily a story about prescriber accountability, not patient behaviour. These platforms are offering a medical service. That they do so without the clinical diligence that medical services require is a professional conduct and regulatory failure — not primarily a patient problem.

But the downstream consequences land with patients: adverse events from missed contraindications, interactions with medications the prescriber did not know about, compounded formulations of uncertain quality, and no ongoing clinical relationship to monitor response or side effects. A patient who starts a GLP-1 medication through a five-minute online consult has a prescriber who does not know their history, cannot monitor their response in any meaningful way, and has no context for managing complications if they arise.

My two cents

The platform that offers the fastest path to a script is not necessarily offering the most appropriate clinical care.

The assessment worth having — with a GP who knows your full history — covers your thyroid history, your gut health, your relationship with food and eating, your cardiovascular medications, and what monitoring should look like once you are on the medication. That conversation takes time because those things take time to ask about. It is not bureaucratic friction. It is the information that determines whether the medication is appropriate for you specifically, what dose makes sense, and what to watch for.

GLP-1 medications are effective. They are also pharmacologically powerful — that is precisely why the appetite suppression works. A prescriber who has spent five minutes reviewing an incomplete profile is not positioned to provide the ongoing clinical oversight that safe long-term use requires.

If you are already using a GLP-1 medication obtained through an online service and would like to bring a GP into your care, that is a conversation worth initiating. You do not need to disclose how you obtained the medication as your first sentence — you can simply say you are taking it and would like to be monitored. A GP can review your history, check for contraindications and interactions, and support your ongoing management from an informed position.

Verdict: yes — worth knowing about.

Sources cited

RACGP newsGP — Alarm over ‘quick prescriptions’ for GLP-1s online (July 2026). https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/alarm-over-quick-prescriptions-for-glp-1s-online
RACGP — Position statement on telehealth-only services. https://www.racgp.org.au/advocacy/position-statements/clinical-and-practice-management/telehealth-only-services
RACGP newsGP — ‘Very worrying’: Study sounds alarm on GLP-1 misuse in eating disorders (June 2026). https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/very-worrying-study-sounds-alarm-on-glp-1-misuse