Scrutiny of Medicinal Cannabis Telehealth Consultations
The rapid expansion of the medicinal cannabis sector in Australia since its legalisation in 2016 has led to a proliferation of telehealth services. However, concerns are emerging regarding the operational practices of these clinics, particularly in the context of patient care and commercial interests. A recent investigation by CHOICE highlighted issues such as brief consultations, potential conflicts of interest, and the prescription of unapproved, high-potency products without comprehensive patient information. This scrutiny of medicinal cannabis telehealth practices underscores ongoing debates within the industry.
Consultation Length and Prescribing Practices
The CHOICE investigation detailed instances of exceptionally short consultations. For example, a doctor at Alternaleaf, one of Australia’s largest medicinal cannabis telehealth companies, conducted a consultation lasting approximately three and a half minutes. During this interaction, a product containing THC was prescribed for anxiety without explicit guidance on administration or potential side effects. Other clinics, including Dispensed, Easykind, Polln, and Candor, also reportedly conducted consultations ranging from under eight minutes to around 15 minutes.
Alternaleaf stated that the practitioner involved in the three-and-a-half-minute consultation has been stood down, claiming this was an “outlier” case and commissioning a clinical audit. Despite these assurances, the report indicates a pattern across multiple providers where doctors primarily recommended cannabis products, often without exploring alternative treatments or medications.
Regulatory Action and Professional Standards
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) has acknowledged concerns within the sector. Since 2019, AHPRA has taken regulatory action against 80 practitioners for prescribing or dispensing medicinal cannabis in ways that did not meet professional standards. These actions included cases of excessive prescribing, consultations deemed too short, and practitioners exclusively prescribing products supplied by companies with which they were associated. AHPRA mandates that doctors inform patients of any financial or commercial conflicts of interest and ensure these do not compromise patient care. However, the CHOICE investigation found that none of the doctors consulted disclosed such affiliations.
Commercial Interests and Vertical Integration
A significant aspect of the current medicinal cannabis telehealth landscape is the prevalence of vertically integrated business models, where telehealth clinics are owned by or affiliated with the pharmaceutical companies that supply the cannabis products.
Pharma-Owned Clinics and Supplier Links
- Montu, a major supplier of medicinal cannabis products, owns Alternaleaf, a telehealth service.
- Nectar Brands owns both the telehealth clinic Polln and the cannabis supplier Cultiva.
- Green Australia Wholesale operates telehealth clinics under the Easykind name and also supplies cannabis products.
Dr Christine Hallinan, a senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne, expressed concerns that this business model removes impartiality and potentially undermines the Hippocratic oath. Dr Christopher Rudge, a health law researcher at Sydney Law School, suggested that even without explicit arrangements, doctors might perceive indirect incentives for prescribing more cannabis products.
Advertising and Ethical Concerns
Despite Australian regulations prohibiting the advertising of prescription medicines, the CHOICE investigation found that many online cannabis clinics use marketing strategies that may breach guidelines. A 2025 study led by Dr Carmen Lim from the University of Queensland found that almost half of 54 Australian medicinal cannabis websites examined were not compliant with regulatory guidelines, often displaying images of cannabis or making unsubstantiated claims about product effects.
Unapproved Products and Patient Information
Another critical area of concern highlighted is the widespread prescription of medicinal cannabis products that lack formal approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), coupled with inadequate disclosure of this status to patients.
TGA Approval Status and Prescribing Pathways
Over 99% of medicinal cannabis products prescribed in Australia are not approved by the TGA. This means the TGA has not assessed these products for their safety, effectiveness, or quality. While doctors can prescribe unapproved medicines under special pathways for
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Hemp Gazette does not provide medical recommendations, diagnoses, or treatment plans. Always consult a qualified healthcare practitioner before making any decisions regarding your health or any medical condition. Statements concerning the therapeutic uses of hemp, cannabis, or cannabinoid-derived products have not been evaluated by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Medicinal cannabis products in Australia are accessed via prescription pathways under TGA regulation.
