Intellectual Property Law

Missouri Physicians and Prescription of Medicines over the Internet

By IBLS Editor

The Internet, slowly but steadily, is defying every area of law, including professional regulatory practice. State statutes, in most states, regulate the prescription of medicines by licensed physicians as a matter of public concern.  Even though most of the statutes have not been adapted to regulate physicians dispensing services on the Internet, courts are willing to construe these statutes, called remedial statutes, to meet the cases that are within the reason or the spirit of the law. Following there is an example on how the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed an administrative decision banning a physician from prescribing medicine over the Internet. 

The physician in this case was licensed under the state of Missouri and was affiliated to a website that prescribed medicines over the Internet (ePrescribe.com).  The physician provided consulting and prescribing services to this online company's customers, then the medicines were sold by a pharmacy- depending on where the customer was located,- and shipped to the customer. The charging authorities were the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) and the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (Board).   

The Board filed a complaint against the physician before the AHC seeking disciplinary sanctions for the sale of controlled medicines over the Internet in violation of the state statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 334.100.2(4)(h) (2000). This particular section of the Missouri statute required physicians to conduct "sufficient medical examination" when prescribing medicines classified as controlled substance. The Board argued that the physician prescribed Meridia, a weight control medicine classified as controlled substance, to an online undercover agent posing as customer without "sufficient medical examination." The Board presented evidence of the danger involved in prescribing Meridia without proper examination and without assessing the specific risks associated with the patient. After a hearing, the AHC publicly reprimanded the physician and restricted his license by prohibiting him from prescribing over the Internet.  The physician filed a petition for review before the circuit court.  The circuit court affirmed the AHC decision and the physician appealed.

On appeal, the physician argued that his action was similar to that of an on-call physician who often prescribes medicines without a face-to-face examination. Indeed, the physician claimed the statute did not require the patient's physical presence for a "sufficient examination." The court held that the physician was not sanctioned for prescribing medicines over the Internet but for prescribing medicines without conducting sufficient examination as required by the state statute.  Even though no specific statute regulated the prescription of medicines over the Internet, the physician's conduct was regulated under the statute at hand and it provided sufficient notice.  Thompson v. State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts, 244 S.W.3d 180 (2007).

Full post as published by IBLS Internet Law Blog on September 17, 2008 (boomark / email).