Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act

The Ryan Haight Act Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (21 U.S.C. § 802(54)) (the “Ryan Haight Act” or “Act”) expanded the federal Controlled Substances Act to define appropriate internet usage in the dispensing and prescribing of schedule drugs, and in doing so effectively banned the issuance of prescriptions via telemedicine services for any controlled substances unless the ordering physician has conducted at least one in-person evaluation of the patient. The Act includes multiple exceptions that permit prescribing of controlled substances without conducting an in-person evaluation, the most relevant to the practice of telemedicine being the mandate that the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) or other federal agency establish rules for a “Special Registration” to be utilized by health care providers. However, despite the statutory mandate, since the 2008 passing of the Act neither the DEA nor any other federal agency has promulgated any regulation or other guidance regarding the development and implementation of such a Special Registration process.

Several previous TechHealth Perspectives blog posts have highlighted the pressures imposed from Congress on the DEA to promulgate the Special Registration process in the wake of the opioid crisis and the recent passage of House Bill 5483, entitled the “Special Registration for Telemedicine Clarification Act of 2018” (the “Bill”), which seeks to address the lack of regulatory guidance regarding the Special Registration exception to the Ryan Haight Act.  Ironically, the Bill would require the DEA to promulgate rules that are already required under the Ryan Haight Act to allow health care providers to apply for a Special Registration.

In the interim, state legislatures have started passing their own laws to address the issue of remote prescribing of controlled substances by telemedicine providers. State remote prescribing legislation varies widely among the states that have enacted such provisions, but generally fits into one of three categories:

Category I—Remote Prescribing is Allowed. Many states have not regulated the remote prescribing of controlled substances any differently than how the state has regulated in-person prescribing practices, or states have placed very minimal, added responsibilities on telemedicine providers seeking to do remote prescribing of controlled substances, which primarily are intended to ensure that the standard of care provided in the telemedicine delivery setting sufficiently mirrors the standard of care provided in the traditional in-person delivery setting. Examples of states that have taken this route include Arizona, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee, and Vermont.

Category II—Remote Prescribing is Prohibited. A handful of states have completely prohibited the remote prescribing of controlled substances or only permit it to occur in rare instances. Connecticut and Georgia (citation available just past verification page) are examples of two states that have adopted this approach.

Category III—Remote Prescribing is Allowed, But Additional Burdens and Barriers Are Placed on Prescribing Providers. Several states, including New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, require at least one in-person appointment before a health care provider can remotely prescribe controlled substances or scheduled narcotics / medications to their patients. While these states may allow for the remote prescribing of controlled substances, there may be limits on prescribing activities, including limits on the types of controlled substances that can be remotely prescribed (and expressly prohibiting the prescribing of certain controlled substances entirely, such as opioids and certain schedule narcotics).

Regardless of which category a state may fall into, many of these states’ laws would be in direct conflict with the Special Registration exception under the Act, if it is ever formulated. That is, many states either prohibit the remote prescribing of controlled substances without an initial in-person consult, or impose more stringent conditions on remote prescribing than what is mandated under current federal law. The question is whether federal law would preempt any state law that is inconsistent with the Special Registration exception and would prohibit remote prescribing without an in-person examination even if the health care provider holds a Special Registration from the federal government.

Congress expressly retained supremacy and preemption through provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 903): “[n]o provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.” The legislative intent is clear that upon the passing of the Controlled Substances Act, Congress anticipated federal and state conflicts of law and expressly directed that federal law would control. However, the drafting yields some authority to the states and is somewhat ambiguous on relevant points.

Thus, states may also regulate remote prescribing and many have taken the opportunity to do so. If the DEA or any other federal agency promulgate rules that potentially could affect any of the existing state laws pertaining to remote prescribing, the supremacy provision  in the Controlled Substances Act is sufficiently vague such that states could craft creative legal arguments providing that the federal and the state laws can consistently stand together. Currently, no entity (federal or state) has challenged any of the existing state laws as conflicting with the Ryan Haight Act or the exceptions for remote prescribing without an initial in-person examination. However, should such an action be filed, federal preemption could overrule any inconsistent state laws, rules, or regulations.

Recently, we have seen some indicia of federal preemption in the telehealth arena with the Department of Veterans Affairs asserting dominance over any state regulation and oversight of telemedicine services with the promulgation of recent regulation (38 C.F.R. § 17.417) which states in no uncertain terms that the federal rule overrides any conflicting state laws. Moreover, the notice and comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs strongly invoke federalism in this area.

Ultimately, federal law could preempt the various state laws that completely prohibit telehealth prescribing, as well as those state laws that have put in place barriers to remote prescribing that are inconsistent with the Ryan Haight Act. Upon the promulgation of the Special Registration process, if and when it may occur, each state will have to assess and address any inconsistencies with federal law in the area of remote prescribing. Of course, while the provisions in the Ryan Haight Act addressing Special Registration do not have limitations on what kind of controlled substances could be remotely prescribed without an in-person examination under the exception, the Special Registration could incorporate limitations on the type of controlled substances that can be remotely prescribed without an in-person examination (similar to current requirements in a number of states).

In the end, the DEA (or whatever other federal agency decides to address the issue of remote prescribing) will need to find a balance when developing the Special Registration process, as there are legitimate concerns surrounding how to address the opioid crisis which is at the forefront of ongoing public health discussions. The current federal stance related to the opioid abuse in this country may prompt federal regulators to turn a blind eye to any conflicting state law or, in the alternative, it may prompt the federal regulators to exercise the power to promote access to needed treatment. The federal government may have the right to preempt and enforce against state laws inconsistent with the Ryan Haight Act; however, most state laws are generally aligned with the public policy intent behind the Ryan Haight Act. Below are additional resources which will be helpful in attaining a broader understanding of the current public information on both the state and federal level concerning the Opioid Crisis:

Rebecca Francis, a Summer Associate (not admitted to the practice of law) in the firm’s Houston Office, contributed significantly to the preparation of this post.

At first blush, the passage of House Bill 5483, entitled the “Special Registration for Telemedicine Clarification Act of 2018” (the “Bill”), appears to address the issue concerning the lack of regulatory guidance regarding the “Special Registration” exception to the Ryan Haight Act of 2008; however, a deeper and more careful analysis reveals that the Bill may not be as effective as most health care practitioners may hope. The Bill, sponsored by Rep. Carter (R-Georgia), a pharmacist, Rep. Bustos (D-Illinois), and nine others, cleared the House on June 12, 2018 without objection. The Bill would require the federal Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) to promulgate rules that would allow health care providers to apply for a “Special Registration” that would allow a provider to prescribe controlled substances via telehealth without first conducting an initial in-person examination of the patient. A transcript of the testimony in support of the Bill (“Transcript”) reveals enthusiasm by the sponsors of the Bill, as well as by Representatives Pallone (D-New Jersey) and Walden (R-Oregon), who called the Bill “a commonsense measure that cuts through the red tape to provide more treatment options to underserved communities through the use of telemedicine.” While Section 413 of the current version of S.B. 2680 would only give the DEA six months to promulgate such rules, the two bills are very similar and almost guarantee that a law will be signed in the coming months that will require DEA to promulgate rules that will finally create a Special Registration exception to the Ryan Haight Act. While the prospect of rules implementing the Special Registration may be exciting for many practitioners, it should be noted that the DEA has been obligated to create these regulations, and has ignored this obligation, for a decade.

Once enacted, the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (the “Act”) effectively banned the prescription of controlled substances via telehealth without an in-person examination of the patient. While there are exceptions to the Act, these exceptions are very technical and do not apply to the majority of treatment settings for which a controlled substance could be prescribed by a treating physician to a patient in his or her home. When the Act was passed, Congress appeared to have the foresight to know that the Act was restrictive and that the Act should have some mechanism by which its prohibitions could be relaxed, because the Act also created 21 U.S.C. § 831(h)(2), which orders the Attorney General of the United States and the DEA to “promulgate regulations specifying the limited circumstances in which a special registration under this subsection may be issued and the procedures for obtaining such a special registration.”  However, as we have previously discussed, the only related action the DEA has taken in the decade between the passage of the Act and today was, in 2016, to mark the creation of these rules a “Long-Term Action” that has not substantively been addressed. By suggesting that the DEA “understand[s] the need to implement this provision of law” Rep. Walden appears to be incognizant of the historical lack of the DEA’s movement to promulgate the Special Registration rules, despite the DEA having the authority to do so since the Act originally was passed in 2008. Mr. Walden also seems to advocate for the DEA, as he supports revising the Bill’s original 90-day deadline for the promulgation of rules to implement a one-year deadline on account of the DEA’s position it would be burdensome. As such, the question remains whether the DEA, who has avoided this exact obligation for nearly a decade, will at last take action within the year if the Bill becomes law.

Even if the DEA promulgates rules to create the Special Registration, there is no indication how broadly such rules will be written. In this regard, the transcript illustrates a fundamental difference in how Representatives Walden and Carter view the value of the DEA creating a Special Registration process and, importantly, what the scope of that Special Registration process should be from many psychiatrists and other practitioners. For example, Rep. Walden described the exception to the Act in narrow terms: “for emergency situations, like the lack of access to an in-person specialist” (a phrase also used by Rep. Carter). Mr. Carter stated as well that the original purpose of the Special Registration was for “legitimate emergency situations” as follows:

“The law included the ability for the Attorney General to issue a special registration to healthcare providers detailing in what circumstances they could prescribe controlled substances via telemedicine in legitimate emergency situations, such as a lack of access to an in-person specialist.”

Rep. Carter further stated that the Special Registration could serve as a tool to fight the opioid crisis “to connect patients with the substance use disorder treatment they need without jeopardizing important safeguards to prevent misuse or diversion,” but he did not speak of the Special Registration in broader terms. The statements by Reps. Walden and Carter mischaracterize the original language of the Act regarding the “Special Registration for Telemedicine,” which does not limit the Special Registration to emergency situations.  Rather, the Act explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to issue the Special Registration to a practitioner who “demonstrates a legitimate need for the special registration” without defining the phrase “legitimate need”. As such, “legitimate need” could include “emergency situations” but also could be interpreted to include circumstances under which a physician is authorized to prescribe a controlled substance via telehealth as long as such prescription is in accordance with the substance’s label or the applicable standard of care for treatment of the illness for which the prescription was issued to treat,

If the DEA takes its cues from the recent House testimony supporting the Bill, the agency may decide the Special Registration should be limited to certain declarations of emergencies, such as the declaration of the opioid crisis as a Public Health Emergency. Such a narrow definition may be fruitful in the fight against opioid use disorder, but may ultimately fall short of expectations held by telehealth practitioners interested in providing services to patients via telehealth that involve prescribing controlled substances.

The calls for utilizing telemedicine in battling the opioid crises in the U.S. are growing louder. On January 30, 2018, Senators Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), sent a letter to Robert W. Patterson, the Acting Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), urging the agency to promulgate regulations that would allow healthcare providers to prescribe medication-assisted treatments via telemedicine for persons with opioid dependence disorder.

The letter specifically addresses the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (21 U.S.C. 802(54)) (the “Act”) as the primary stumbling block preventing physicians from prescribing medication-assisted treatments via telemedicine to patients seeking treatment for opioid dependence disorder. The Act essentially prohibits physicians from remotely prescribing any controlled substances through telemedicine unless they first conduct an in-person examination with the patient, or the patient is being treated by and is physically located at a DEA registered hospital or clinic.  However, through the Act, Congress delegated authority to the DEA to create a “special registration” under 21 U.S.C. 802(54)(E), which would allow providers to practice telemedicine without being “subject to the mandatory in-person medical evaluation requirement” under the Act.  Yet, as we discussed in a recent blog, to date the DEA has taken virtually no actions to promulgate any rules that would allow DEA to issue such a special registration.

In October 2017, President Trump declared the opioid epidemic as a public health emergency. As we stated in a November 2017 blog, this declaration technically permits the DEA to authorize a separate method to permit prescription of controlled substances under the Act under 21 U.S.C. 802(54)(D), which would likely not be subject to rulemaking or notice and comment given that such authorization would terminate with the conclusion of the public health emergency.  In conjunction with President Trump’s statement, The President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis recommended the use of telemedicine to assist in expanding access to treatments for patients with opioid dependence disorder.  The Commission explicitly recommended that “federal agencies revise regulations . . . to allow for [substance use disorders] treatment via telemedicine.”  But even with the recent January 2018 extension of the public health emergency declaration until April 23, 2018, the agency has remained silent regarding the exemption.

The letter provides examples of how restricting telemedicine providers from prescribing anti-addiction medication continues to disadvantage rural Americans who do not readily have access to dedicated treatment centers and mental health professionals. For example, the letter states that in Missouri, “98 out of 101 rural counties lack a licensed psychiatrists—“a dangerous scenario that has contributed to higher rates of hospitalizations, emergency room visits, drug addiction and suicide in rural areas.[1]””  The letter directly calls on Acting Administrator Patterson and the agency to “immediately move to expedite the rulemaking process to create a special registration class of providers permitted to prescribe opioid-based medication-assisted addiction therapies via telemedicine.”  The letter emphasizes that the Senators are asking for the agency to take discrete action to treat patients with opioid dependence disorders in rural regions of the country, and not to promulgate a rule that would allow general prescribing of controlled substances for pain management, pain treatment, or any other pain-related purposes.

With the shortage of mental and behavioral health providers in the U.S., it is unsurprising that members of Congress in states with few providers or geographic challenges for patients seeking treatment have become vocal supporters of utilizing telemedicine as a means to combat growing opioid addiction problems in their states. Several state legislatures, including Indiana, Hawaii, and Florida, have or are in the midst of passing legislation to make it easier for providers to prescribe controlled substances to treat opioid dependence disorder via telemedicine.  As the letter stresses, “[t]he severity of the U.S. opioid crises demands nothing less than immediate action on this issue.”

 

[1] The quote was first written in Telepsychiatry helps with mental health burdens in rural Missouri, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, by Michele Munz (May 20, 2017) available at http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/health/telepsychiatry-helps-with-mental-health-burdens-in-rural-missouri/article_495462ea-0ccb-58ee-9aa1-ce32930398ba.html.

In 2008, Congress passed the Ryan Haight Act (21 U.S.C. § 802(54)) (“Ryan Haight”) following the death of Ryan Haight, a young man who overdosed on prescription painkillers he purchased from an online pharmacy without a valid prescription. Ryan Haight amended the federal Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802 et seq.) and specifically prohibits dispensing controlled substances via the internet without a “valid prescription” which, according to the law, must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose and may only be issued once a physician has conducted at least one in-person evaluation of the patient (i.e., before issuing the remote prescription for the controlled substance). Certain exceptions may apply, but arguably none contemplate the direct-to-patient virtual care models that many of today’s telehealth / telemedicine companies are utilizing.

The intent behind the enactment of Ryan Haight in 2008 was to shut down online pharmacies and to restrict access to painkillers and other controlled substances provided to patients in ways that could circumvent a physician’s examination (and the issuance of a valid prescription, if the physician determined it was an appropriate course of treatment for the patient). Unfortunately, the effect of enacting Ryan Haight was, in reality, much more significant – not only restricting access via online pharmacies to the deadliest or most addictive painkillers, but also banning the issuance of remote prescriptions for any controlled substances unless an in-person visit occurred first between the physician and the patient. What the requirements imposed by Ryan Haight ignore is that there are many more drugs in Schedules II – V that are designed to treat patients for a panoply of non-pain related illnesses, many of which can be prescribed safely and effectively by means of an appropriate telehealth encounter. While Congress largely has ignored calls to revise Ryan Haight to address this issue, some states have started to rethink how, at least at the state level, they will handle the issue of health care providers prescribing controlled substances through non-traditional treatment arrangements, such as the use of telehealth / telemedicine.

An example is Indiana, where the legislature recently amended Indiana Code 25-1-9.5-8 (in 2017) to expand the list of drugs that may be prescribed by authorized prescribers through telehealth / telemedicine. Originally enacted in 2016, the law banned the remote prescribing of all controlled substances if such prescribing was done via a telehealth / telemedicine encounter. The revised law dramatically expands the ability to prescribe, via telehealth / telemedicine, certain controlled substances, and only limits such prescribing practices with respect to opioids, abortion inducing drugs, and/or ophthalmic devices (i.e., contact lenses and glasses). The Indiana law is particularly thoughtful and timely because it excludes from the ban any opioids that act as partial-agonists are used to treat or manage opioid dependence. Therefore, the Indiana law not only expands treatment options by allowing the remote prescribing of many controlled substances, including some that can be used to treat opioid dependence disorders, but does so in a manner that attempts, discretely, to address the opioid dependence epidemic by limiting access to most opioids.

Following a similar path is Hawaii, which like Indiana has excluded the remote prescription of opioids via telehealth as well as medical cannabis. While Hawaii’s laws do not explicitly permit the remote prescription of controlled substances, the fact that Hawaii Statutes Revised § 329-1 does not distinguish between the prescribing of controlled and non-controlled substances (within the context of discussing the rules related to remote prescribing) and that Hawaii Statutes Revised § 453-1.3 only requires an in-person examination prior to prescription of opioids and medicinal cannabis, would logically support the assumption that prescribing other, less controversial controlled substances would be permissible. Like Hawaii, Florida is another state that has taken a more nuanced approach to remote prescribing of controlled substances via telehealth / telemedicine. Florida Administrative Code rule 64B8-9.0141, for example, permits the prescription of controlled substances to treat psychiatric disorders.

Simultaneously, some states also have continued to build, refine, and expand statewide databases that store information regarding the prescriptions for controlled substances written by practitioners licensed by the state. This information can help physicians and other prescribing health care providers to determine, if and when contemplating the issuance of a remote prescription to a certain patient, whether that patient may be “doctor shopping” and/or whether concomitant medications may pose a risk to a patient if he/she is prescribed a particular drug. These databases, and the laws creating and amending them, may be one reason why states are more willing to expand remote prescribing practices given these new additional safeguards.

By contrast, to date the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has taken no additional steps to clarify or refine the requirements under Ryan Haight since it was enacted. When Ryan Haight was first passed, it included an exception on its applicability for prescribers who obtain a “special registration” from the Attorney General or the Administrator of DEA per 28 CFR 0.100. When Ryan Haight was passed, Congress contemplated that DEA would “promulgate regulations governing the issuance to practitioners of a special registration relating to the practice of telemedicine;” however, neither DEA nor any other agency has provided any additional information regarding this special registration since Ryan Haight was first signed into law in 2008. In 2015, DEA proposed making a rule that would provide clarity to the “special registration” exception; however, in 2016 DEA amended the proposed rule-making to a “Long-Term Action” with no set deadline, further delaying even the idea of providing additional clarity. Perhaps the DEA’s response is a reaction to states that strongly oppose providing prescribing information to other states or even to the federal government for various reasons, including privacy concerns. That is to say, perhaps states are more willing to loosen remote prescribing laws for controlled substances because the databases they control and the data provided thereunder have eased concerns with allowing prescribers to prescribe as they see fit based on the information available regardless of whether the prescriber is physically present in the same room as the patient.

In the end, and regardless of the reasons, Ryan Haight continues to be good law, meaning that it is enforceable against prescribing health care practitioners. Despite an apparent lack of actual enforcement (the last case against a physician to enforce Ryan Haight was in July of 2011), the DEA technically can choose to enforce Ryan Haight at any time. Prescribers should therefore be cautious and understand that remote prescribing of controlled substances, even within the confines of a state law, still could be considered a violation of federal law with penalties including prison, fines, and temporary or permanent loss of the prescriber’s DEA Registration. Health care providers contemplating the prescribing of any controlled substances through telehealth / telemedicine can benefit from doing diligence with the support of legal counsel to fully understand the potential impacts of Ryan Haight, relevant state laws, and the potential risk involved in such a venture before proceeding.

On October 26, 2017, President Trump directed the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) to declare a National Public Health Emergency on the opioid epidemic. While the President offered few details regarding how his administration will address the challenge of treating patients struggling with opioid addiction, a previous statement from the White House indicated that the Administration plans to expand access to treatment via telemedicine and more specifically, remote prescribing of the necessary controlled substances used to treat these patients. While this is a logical step, and one that has been advocated at length by states and health care experts, alike, expanding health care providers’ capabilities to utilize remote prescribing to treat opioid addiction will likely run afoul of existing federal law.

The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act (“Act”) was passed by Congress in 2008 following the death of Ryan Haight, an 18-year-old honor student who overdosed on prescription narcotics delivered to his door by an internet pharmacy based on a prescription written by a physician he had never seen. The Act amended the federal Controlled Substances Act and requires a prescribing practitioner to be physically present when prescribing, or allowing to be prescribed by a remote practitioner, a controlled substance, if the prescribing practitioner has not previously conducted an in-person physical examination of the patient. However, some have viewed the Act as establishing a significant barrier to the progress of telemedicine. In the words of former Rep. Mary Bono (R-Calif.), “the issue back then is very different from what the issue has become.”

Today, telemedicine has exploded. In just the last year, nearly every state has enacted new legislation that either expands access to telemedicine services, expands parity for reimbursement for telemedicine services, and/or loosens previous restrictions on telemedicine interactions (e.g., establishing practitioner-patient relationships) and remote prescribing. In stark contrast, the federal government has made little to no attempt to modify the antiquated Act to keep up with the telemedicine advancements since it was passed in 2008. Practitioners must now navigate their telemedicine practices around the Act since there are few exceptions to the Act and violations of the Act are considered violations of the Controlled Substances Act, which include fines, penalties, disbarment, and incarceration. With such stiff consequences and the lack of guidance or regulatory measures promulgated by the Drug Enforcement Agency, practitioners are unlikely to prescribe drugs to treat opioid-addicted patients that are most vital to their treatment.

Ironically, the World Health Organization deemed methadone and buprenorphine, two controlled substances, to be “essential medicines” in the treatment of opioid addiction. Studies have shown strong inverse linear association between heroine overdose deaths and patients being treated with opioid agonist treatments, including methadone and buprenorphine. As such, the ability to treat patients effectively through telemedicine and remote prescribing will often require prescribing drugs currently prohibited for such prescription. This realization has come to many policy makers and telemedicine organizations. Most of these individuals and organizations have called for amendment or repeal of the Act; however, one possible interpretation of the Act could allow for remote prescribing of controlled substances to treat opioid addiction under the telemedicine public health emergency declaration exemption of the Act.

Within the Act, Section 802(54)(D) (21 U.S.C. 802(54)(D)) permits the remote prescribing of controlled substances “during a public health emergency declared by the Secretary” and to the extent that the prescribing “involves patients located in such areas, and such controlled substances, as the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, designates . . . .” On October 26, 2017, the Secretary, as directed by the President, issued the following statement regarding the public health emergency:

As a result of the consequences of the opioid crisis affecting our Nation, on this date and after consultation with public health officials as necessary, I, Eric D. Hargan, Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services, pursuant to the authority vested in me under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, do hereby determine that a public health emergency exists nationwide.

Although a declaration of a public health emergency normally includes specific geographic parameters rather than blanket “nationwide” issuance, based upon the Secretary’s declaration, one could argue that health care practitioners seeking to treat patients dealing with opioid addiction now must only await the list of controlled substances (to be issued by the Secretary and the U.S. Attorney General) before they are able to remotely prescribing controlled substances to treat opioid addiction. However, even if the Attorney General were to agree with this interpretation of Section 802(54)(D)’s application and to provide a list of controlled substances that can be prescribed thereunder, 42 U.S.C. 247d only permits a declaration of a “public health emergency” to be in place for a maximum of 90 days. Therefore, utilizing Section 802(54)(D) to allow remote prescribing to treat opioid addiction through telemedicine will only serve as a temporary patch, while the bigger issue of amending the Ryan Haight Act needs to be addressed by Congress. In the words of Ms. Bono, “if the Ryan Haight Act needs to be updated, then let’s update it.”