THE TRUTH ABOUT DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER MEN’S SEXUAL HEALTH CARE

Introduction and Historical Background

Erectile dysfunction (ED) and low libido have long been sensitive issues, often stigmatized and under-discussed. In 1998, the introduction of sildenafil (Viagra) revolutionized ED treatment and quickly became one of the fastest-selling drugs in history. Direct-to-consumer (DTC) marketing for Viagra – including television ads featuring figures like former Senator Bob Dole – was virtually unprecedented at the time. This aggressive marketing, coupled with an estimated 30 million American men affected by ED, created enormous demand. By the early 2000s, many men, embarrassed to discuss sexual health with their doctors, turned to the internet for solutions. This led to a proliferation of online pharmacies and “lifestyle” websites selling ED pills, often without proper prescriptions. Unfortunately, many of these were unregulated and sold counterfeit or unsafe products. In fact, the number of unregulated or illegal online pharmacies now exceeds the number of fully licensed ones, underscoring the scope of the problem.

Fast forward to the last five years: telemedicine has matured, and a new wave of online men’s health platforms has emerged. Companies like Hims, Roman (Ro), and others now offer quick online consultations and home delivery of medications for ED, hair loss, and other men’s health needs. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this trend; telehealth usage in the U.S. surged to 38 times pre-pandemic levels by early 2021. What once may have required an awkward doctor’s visit can now be handled in minutes on a smartphone. This article explores the good, the bad, and the ugly of this rapidly growing industry of online prescribing for male sexual function – examining the benefits and convenience it offers, the significant risks and documented harms, and the current state of regulation and quality control in the U.S. and abroad.

The Appeal of Quick, Online Prescriptions – Benefits and Convenience

Convenience and Privacy: One of the primary drivers of DTC telehealth’s popularity is convenience. Patients can avoid the time and discomfort of face-to-face doctor visits. No travel, no sitting in waiting rooms – instead, a few clicks or an online questionnaire can secure a prescription within hours. For instance, a user might fill out a brief medical intake form and, within minutes, have a consultation (sometimes entirely via messaging) that leads to medication being shipped to their door. This model particularly suits conditions people find embarrassing, like ED or hair loss. “Patients’ time is valuable,” notes Dr. Ateev Mehrotra of Harvard Medical School, emphasizing that the efficiency and time saved with telehealth are “really critical”. Privacy is another benefit: men who feel uneasy discussing sexual dysfunction in person may be more candid online, and they avoid potentially awkward in-person pharmacy pickup. Studies have found that men often defer or avoid treatment for ED due to inconvenience or shame, so the anonymous or discreet nature of online platforms can encourage more men to seek help.

Expanded Access and Early Intervention: DTC telehealth platforms can reach populations that traditionally struggled to access care. Men in rural areas or those without a regular physician can obtain treatment that previously might have been out of reach. During the pandemic, telehealth became a lifeline for many patients when in-person clinics were closed, and this expanded access has persisted. Some niche telehealth services even cater to underserved groups; for example, LGBTQ+ focused platforms have improved access for transgender or queer patients who might otherwise travel hundreds of miles for specialized care. In the realm of men’s sexual health, easy online access means conditions like ED or premature ejaculation are addressed sooner rather than silently endured. Early intervention can improve quality of life and relationships, and in some cases, prompt men to address underlying health issues once the conversation is opened.

Cost Savings and Generic Medications: Many DTC men’s health companies bypass traditional insurance – patients pay out-of-pocket, often at prices lower than clinic cash rates. By streamlining operations and dispensing medications directly (often as generics), these platforms can offer competitive pricing. An analysis of 15 U.S.-based DTC platforms found the minimum per-pill prices for sildenafil as low as $0.50 (with a mean of about $5). Likewise, tadalafil was offered for as little as $0.50 per pill on some sites. While these services usually don’t accept insurance, the out-of-pocket cost can be lower than insurance copays for brand-name drugs. The business model – in which the platform makes money by selling the medication rather than charging high consultation fees – means many sites offer the medical consultation essentially for free or bundled with the prescription. For patients with high deductibles or no insurance, this direct model can be economically appealing.

Reducing Stigma and Encouraging Care-Seeking: The anonymity of online interactions can reduce stigma. DTC telemedicine services often focus on issues like sexual dysfunction, hair loss, or mental health – conditions associated with personal embarrassment. By normalizing these conversations through savvy marketing and easy access, these companies have arguably helped destigmatize men’s sexual health to some degree. High-profile advertising (from subway ads to Super Bowl commercials) signals that it’s okay to seek help for ED or low libido. Indeed, within the first year of Viagra’s approval, public conversation about impotence increased markedly. Today’s online platforms build on that legacy, reaching men who might never have broached the topic with their doctor. In summary, the “good” side of this trend is improved access, convenience, privacy, and empowerment for patients to address sexual health concerns without shame.

The Risks and Downsides – Quick Consults, Missing Information, and Medical Dangers

Despite the benefits, the “bad and ugly” aspects of online prescribing for sexual health are a growing concern. Many platforms deliver care that is fast but superficial, potentially sacrificing quality and safety for speed.

Minimal Consultations and Skipped Evaluations: A major risk is that the medical evaluation can be exceedingly brief or haphazard. In the patient case described (a man with heart disease on nitrates who obtained ED drugs via a 2-minute online consult), the provider failed to verify critical history or vital signs. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated scenario. Investigations in the UK found some online prescribers reviewing patient questionnaires in as little as 17 seconds before approving prescription. Several UK online pharmacies were sanctioned by regulators for inadequate identity checks, poor medical history review, and prescribing inappropriate medications without notifying the patient’s GP. In the U.S., a 2023 study of 15 DTC ED platforms showed that 93% relied solely on online intake forms, with direct contact from a physician in many cases only occurring if required by state law or if the provider deemed it necessary. Only 27% of these platforms explicitly advertised that a physician (MD) would be involved; many use nurse practitioners or physician assistants, and the interaction is often asynchronous (no live video or phone unless requested). While online questionnaires can flag obvious contraindications, they may miss nuances that a thorough in-person exam or detailed telehealth visit might catch. For example, subtle signs of cardiovascular disease, depression, or hormonal issues could be overlooked when the focus is just on getting a prescription out quickly. Good medical practice traditionally involves taking a comprehensive history, performing an exam or appropriate tests, then deciding on treatment – not starting from a desired drug and working backward to justify it. With many DTC platforms, the model is essentially reversed: the patient “wants” a specific solution (e.g. Viagra or testosterone), and the process is designed to efficiently confirm they’re not an absolute contraindication and then dispense the drug. This solution-oriented approach can result in important underlying causes going unaddressed.

Missing or Inaccurate History – A Recipe for Danger: The truncated nature of some online consults means critical safety checks may be missed. ED drugs like sildenafil, tadalafil (PDE5 inhibitors) are generally safe for healthy men, but they are absolutely contraindicated in those taking nitrate medications for heart disease because the combination can cause a life-threatening drop in blood pressure. A thorough history would catch this, yet an online system that relies on patients self-reporting and lacks medical record review is vulnerable to error. Patients might inadvertently omit medications or medical conditions, or even deliberately withhold information out of fear they’ll be denied treatment. In the example scenario, the patient did not volunteer his nitrate use, and no external records were checked. Had he taken the prescribed ED cocktail, the result could have been catastrophic. Research confirms these fears: a large study of Swedish men with heart disease found that those who took PDE5 inhibitors while on nitrates had significantly higher rates of heart attacks and mortality over time (e.g. a 39% higher overall mortality) compared to similar patients on nitrates who avoided ED drugs. The authors emphasized the need for careful, patient-centered consideration before prescribing ED meds to men with cardiovascular disease. This is difficult to do with a rushed online consult. Even beyond nitrates, other red flags can be missed: poorly controlled hypertension, arrhythmias, or severe liver/kidney disease (which affect medication metabolism) might not be fully evaluated. No vital signs were taken in the case above – a basic blood pressure and heart rate might reveal someone for whom ED meds are unsafe until stabilization. Additionally, ED can be a harbinger of systemic issues (it often correlates with cardiovascular risk); treating the symptom without evaluation means a missed opportunity to detect life-threatening conditions early.

Over-Prescription and Inappropriate Treatment: There is growing evidence that some telehealth companies may prescribe medications that are not truly indicated, driven by a profit motive. A striking example comes from a 2022 secret-shopper study by urologist Dr. Justin Dubin and colleagues. Posing as a 34-year-old man with nonspecific symptoms like low energy and decreased libido (but normal lab tests), Dubin consulted seven online men’s health platforms. Six out of seven were willing to prescribe him testosterone injections, despite his testosterone levels being normal and guidelines advising against such therapy in this scenario. Even more concerning, about half of the providers failed to warn that testosterone can impair fertility – a crucial omission since the fake patient explicitly said he wanted children soon. Inappropriate testosterone not only exposes the patient to side effects (mood changes, blood clots, etc.) but could also thwart his family plans by suppressing sperm production. “It just seemed like…terrible practice of medicine,” Dubin said of the experience. An accompanying editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine called Dubin’s findings “egregious” and urged better oversight of standalone DTC services. The concern is that these platforms, which profit from medication sales, have a financial incentive to over-prescribe or at least to be lenient in prescription criteria. Unlike a traditional clinic, a DTC telehealth company often makes little or no money from the consultation itself – the revenue comes from selling the treatment. As one telehealth entrepreneur put it, for many platforms “it’s simply a route to market for a drug” rather than a holistic healthcare service. This dynamic can lead to prescribing on demand, where the threshold for giving out medication is low. If a customer doesn’t get the prescription they seek, they may take their business elsewhere, creating pressure to say “yes.” Furthermore, these visits often skip primary care referrals. In a standard medical setting, a man with ED, normal testosterone, and fatigue would prompt a workup for other causes (like diabetes, depression, or thyroid issues). By contrast, a DTC clinic might just sell him some sildenafil or supplements and move on – a quick fix (a “Band-Aid,” as Dubin describes it) that leaves the root problem untouched.

Medication Side Effects and Lack of Monitoring: Even legitimately indicated medications come with side effects that require monitoring. PDE5 inhibitors can cause headaches, flushing, nasal congestion, and in rare cases vision or hearing disturbances. Testosterone therapy requires periodic blood tests to check hormone levels, blood counts, and liver function. In an online model, especially one that is asynchronous, follow-up can be minimal. Some platforms do offer messaging with providers and encourage routine labs for things like testosterone, but others may not be so diligent. Patients might not recognize side effects or know when to seek help. For example, if an online-prescribed ED medication led to priapism (a prolonged painful erection), would the patient have been properly educated on this emergency? There’s a risk that men treated via quick telehealth consults don’t receive adequate counseling on medication use, interactions, or warning signs, compared to a thorough in-person visit. A recent evaluation of major DTC platforms for ED found the quality of information and counseling to be variable and often suboptimalsciencedirect.comwjmh.org. Misleading claims can also downplay side effects. Unlike pharmaceutical companies, which by law must include risk disclosures in their ads, telehealth services are not always held to the same standard when they advertise a service or compounded medication (more on that loophole below). This can give patients a false sense of security about the drugs they are taking.

Psychological and Ethical Concerns: An often overlooked downside is the psychological impact of subpar care. If an underlying issue is missed or a patient is sold an ineffective supplement, their condition (and anxiety about it) may worsen. Inadequate treatment or evaluation can lead to psychological distress, as one review of DTC telemedicine ethics noted. Patients might feel brushed off or become more anxious if their sexual function doesn’t improve – yet they’ve never had a proper workup to find the real cause. Ethically, there’s concern that misleading advertising by some platforms preys on vulnerable consumers. Nagappan et al. (2023) reviewed dozens of studies and found over half reported DTC companies engaging in misleading ads, questionable quality assurance, and concealing information to mislead customers. Some websites promise miracle cures or portray prescription drugs as simple lifestyle aids, which trivializes the potential risks. There’s also the matter of privacy: these services handle sensitive health information but are not always clear about data use. Only two-thirds of the ED platforms studied explicitly mentioned HIPAA compliance (privacy law) on their sites, and a few even claimed they were not “covered entities” under HIPAA (implying they operate outside traditional healthcare privacy rules). This raises flags about how personal data or buying habits might be used for marketing or shared with third parties. Data breaches or sharing information about a man’s ED treatment could have embarrassing or discriminatory repercussions.

In sum, the risks include incomplete medical assessments, missed diagnoses, dangerous drug interactions, over-prescribing due to profit incentives, lack of proper patient education, and potential breaches of privacy. These pitfalls have already led to documented harm in some cases and serve as cautionary tales for this new model of care.

Cases and Consequences: Has Harm Occurred?

With any new healthcare delivery model, a critical question is: are patients being hurt? In the case of online prescribing for sexual health, there is evidence of harm – both potential and actual.

Adverse Events and Close Calls: The most glaring dangers revolve around cardiovascular complications. As discussed, co-prescribing ED medications with nitrates is a known recipe for severe hypotension, heart attack, or even death. It’s hard to quantify how often telehealth prescribing has led to ER visits or worse, because there is no centralized reporting just for telemedicine-related incidents. However, the risk is not hypothetical. Cardiologists have warned for decades about the Viagra-nitrate interaction, and the continuing popularity of online ED drug services means patients with heart disease may slip through screening. The American College of Cardiology highlighted in 2024 that men on chronic nitrates who also got PDE5 inhibitors had significantly higher rates of major adverse cardiac events, urging doctors to be extremely cautious. We can infer that if DTC platforms are less cautious or if patients aren’t fully truthful, some portion will experience serious cardiovascular events as a result. Indeed, media reports occasionally surface about men suffering heart attacks during sexual activity after taking ED pills, especially if they had undisclosed heart issues – though tying those directly to telehealth prescribing is challenging without specific case investigations.

Quality Problems with Medications: Another area of harm is the quality of the drugs themselves, particularly with compounded medications. Some DTC men’s health services offer compounded products – for example, troches (lozenge-type tablets) that combine two PDE5 inhibitors plus apomorphine (a centrally-acting dopamine agonist) in one formulation. One such product, marketed as a 3-in-1 ED medication, includes sildenafil and tadalafil together with apomorphine in a rapid-dissolve form. This formulation is not FDA-approved; it’s made by compounding pharmacies on a per-prescription basis. While innovative, it carries risks. Compounded drugs do not undergo FDA premarket review for safety, efficacy, or quality. The FDA has explicitly warned that compounded versions of approved drugs pose higher risks to patients because they lack the rigorous oversight that standard pharmaceuticals go through. In one high-profile instance unrelated to ED, a telehealth company (Hims & Hers) promoted a compounded weight-loss injection as a cheaper alternative to FDA-approved obesity drugs. This triggered FDA warnings and even a Senate inquiry, highlighting that these ads omitted safety information and that such compounds might mislead patients about what they are getting. By analogy, compounded sexual health drugs could also mislead patients – a man might think a troche is a fully vetted “new ED pill,” when in reality it’s a custom mix of medications without large clinical trials to back it. If the compounding pharmacy’s quality control is poor, there could be dosing inconsistencies or contamination. There have been past tragedies with negligent compounding pharmacies (e.g. a 2012 meningitis outbreak from tainted injections), which is why regulators keep a close eye on this sector. So far, we haven’t seen a publicized disaster with an ED compounded product, but the potential for harm is there if standards slip.

Examples of Patient Harm: Documented cases specific to telehealth ED prescribing are still emerging, but we do have analogies and case reports that illustrate the perils. For instance, consider a hypothetical (but plausible) scenario: A man in his 70s with known coronary artery disease goes online seeking help for ED. He consults a telehealth clinic, denies any contraindicated meds (perhaps forgetting that his “chest spray” is a nitrate), and is approved for a high-dose ED troche. Excited to use his new medication, he does – and within an hour suffers a collapse due to profoundly low blood pressure, landing in the emergency room. This scenario mirrors real cases reported in medical literature where combining ED drugs with nitrates led to syncope or infarction. In another example, Dr. Dubin’s secret-shopper testosterone study reveals harm by overtreatment: had he been an actual patient, six different providers would have put him on unnecessary hormone injections, exposing him to side effects and potentially ruining his fertility. Over-prescription of testosterone has very real consequences – there are documented cases of young men on unnecessary testosterone developing polycythemia (dangerous elevated red blood cell counts), severe acne, or testicular atrophy and infertility, all because of improper prescribing. The fact that multiple companies were ready to do this “egregious” practice suggests that some patients likely have already been harmed or at least put at risk by this model.

We should also consider indirect harm: If a man’s underlying disease (say diabetes or depression causing ED) is masked by simply giving him pills, his overall health may deteriorate until a more serious event (like a stroke or severe depression) occurs. That harm is less obvious but no less important. The psychological harm of mismanagement – frustration, lost trust in healthcare, or mental anguish over unresolved issues – can also be significant, though harder to measure. Misleading marketing can instill false hope or unrealistic expectations, leading to disappointment or misuse of products (e.g. taking higher doses than recommended when results don’t match the glossy promises).

In summary, while large-scale studies on telehealth ED outcomes are still limited, red flags abound. Medical experts have rung alarm bells about increased cardiac events when ED meds are misused, academic studies have caught telehealth providers overprescribing dangerous therapies, and regulators have identified real cases of patient harm (as the UK’s CQC did when patients were endangered by 17-second prescription review). These cases underscore that, without proper safeguards, this model of care can indeed cause harm to patients.

Regulation and Oversight: Who Watches Over Online Prescribers?

The rapid expansion of direct-to-consumer telemedicine has outpaced some regulations, creating a patchwork oversight environment. Key questions arise: Who is responsible for ensuring these practices are safe? Are there regulatory gaps?

U.S. Regulatory Framework: In the United States, multiple authorities intersect in regulating online prescribing:

• State Medical Boards: The practice of medicine is regulated at the state level. Any healthcare provider (physician, nurse practitioner, PA) treating a patient via telehealth is generally required to be licensed in the state where the patient is located. State medical boards enforce standards of care and can discipline providers for negligence or unprofessional conduct – telehealth is no exception. If a patient is harmed by a grossly inappropriate prescription online, the prescribing provider could face investigation. However, enforcing this across state lines is challenging. A doctor in California treating a New York patient via a national platform must hold a New York license, but state boards may not easily catch problems if no formal complaint is made. Telehealth companies typically ensure their clinicians are licensed in all states they operate, but the patient in our scenario wasn’t even sure if his prescriber was a physician or if they were licensed in NY – a troubling uncertainty. States also vary in their rules: some have adopted the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact to streamline multi-state licensing, and during COVID-19, emergency orders temporarily loosened cross-state telehealth rules (many of which have since lapsed). Standard of care in telehealth is meant to be equivalent to in-person; a 2-minute consult that misses key history could be seen as falling below standard. But unless a patient or another provider flags a problem, it may go unchecked. The Federation of State Medical Boards has noted increasing complaints related to telemedicine, but systematic data is limited.
• FDA and Pharmacy Boards: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates medications. FDA approval is required for mass-marketed drugs, but compounded medications (custom mixed by a pharmacist per a prescription) are not individually approved by FDA. Instead, compounding is regulated by state pharmacy boards with some federal oversight (e.g., the FDA can inspect large compounding facilities). When telehealth companies advertise or sell compounded drugs (such as the 3-in-1 ED troches or compounded hormone injections), they enter a gray zone. The FDA has been paying close attention: in 2023 and 2024 it issued warning letters to telehealth and pharmacy businesses promoting compounded versions of drugs like semaglutide (for weight loss) and tadalafil/sildenafil combinations. The agency reminded these companies that “compounded drugs pose a higher risk to patients” and admonished them for implying these formulations were “FDA-approved” (which they are not). Notably, advertising for traditional prescription drugs must include risk information per FDA rules, but if a telehealth ad is promoting a service or a compoundeddrug, those specific FDA advertising rules might not apply. In fact, the FDA has acknowledged a regulatory loophole: advertisements for non-FDA-approved products (like compounded meds) fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not the FDA. This means a TV or web ad by a telehealth company can encourage viewers to seek treatment (“Get help for ED discreetly online!”) without the laundry list of side effects that, say, a Viagra commercial would require. Recent controversy over a Hims & Hers Super Bowl ad highlighted this gap – Senators and the FDA voiced concern that viewers weren’t being warned of risks, but the company countered that their ad was a “help-seeking” message compliant with FTC rules, not a direct drug ad. The FTC, for its part, can take action against deceptive advertising. In 2023-2025, the FTC opened an investigation into Hims & Hers focusing on whether its marketing and subscription cancellation practices misled consumers. The outcome is pending, but it shows regulators are starting to scrutinize these businesses’ consumer protection aspects.
• State Pharmacy Boards: Online platforms usually partner with mail-order pharmacies or have their own affiliated pharmacies to dispense medications. These pharmacies must be licensed in the states they ship to. State pharmacy boards oversee dispensing errors, storage, and prescription validity. If an online outfit were shipping medication without a valid prescription or operating an unlicensed pharmacy, boards could shut them down. One major concern is illicit online pharmacies (often overseas) that are completely outside U.S. jurisdiction – selling “Viagra” without any prescription or using counterfeit drugs. The FDA and US Customs work to block these, but it’s a cat-and-mouse game. The presence of legitimate telehealth pharmacies hopefully lures customers away from truly illegal sites, but the latter remain a significant problem, as noted earlier (thousands of rogue pharmacy websites exist).
• Quality Assurance Entities: Some telehealth companies voluntarily seek accreditation or follow guidelines (for example, there are URAC accreditations for telehealth, or LegitScript certification for online pharmacies). These can lend credibility, but they are not mandatory. It largely falls to each company to set internal quality standards for their medical consultations. If a platform has a Chief Medical Officer and robust clinical protocols, it might enforce thorough screening (e.g., always ask about nitrates, require an ID check, etc.). Others might be more lax. Without uniform standards, quality can vary widely between platforms.

International Perspectives: Globally, countries are grappling with similar issues but with different approaches:

• Europe and UK: In most of Europe, direct advertising of prescription drugs to consumers is banned (the U.S. and New Zealand are notable exceptions that allow it). This means the overt DTC marketing model (plastering subway ads for sildenafil or running cheeky TV spots) is less prevalent. However, online prescribing exists in the UK and EU via online clinics and pharmacies. The UK’s Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates online medical services. As shown in 2017, the CQC took action against multiple online pharmacies for patient safety lapses – suspending some and warning others that were found to prescribe high volumes of risky medications without proper check. The General Medical Council in the UK has issued guidelines for remote prescribing, emphasizing that doctors must adequately identify patients and inform their regular GP when appropriate. European countries also require online pharmacies to be registered and display a valid logo (a green cross symbol) verifying their legitimacy. Some nations have innovated to reduce harm: for instance, the UK reclassified sildenafil 50mg as an over-the-counter pharmacy medicine (“Viagra Connect”) in 2018. This allowed men to obtain ED treatment from a pharmacist after a brief screening, steering them away from dangerous black-market pills. In essence, authorities recognized that if embarrassment was driving men online, better to make a safe option available without prescription. Other countries may follow suit if it proves to improve safety.
• Canada and Australia: These countries have seen growth in telehealth as well. Canada has online clinics (some U.S.-based ones extend services there), and regulation is handled by provincial colleges of physicians and pharmacists, similar to state boards in the U.S. Advertising is more restricted (Canada bars DTC ads that mention specific prescription drug names and indications together), which somewhat tempers the aggressive marketing we see in the U.S. Australia has online prescription services too, but they must comply with rules set by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for medicines. A global challenge remains: cross-border sales. A website based overseas might ship pills into any country, undercutting local laws. International cooperation is needed to police dangerous operators.

Filling the Gaps: Regulators are now playing catch-up to this fast-moving industry. U.S. senators have proposed legislation to close the advertising loopholes for compounded drugs, seeking to hold telehealth ads to similar standards of risk disclosure as pharma ads. There are also calls for the FDA and FTC to jointly crack down on misleading health claims online. On the state level, some medical boards are updating telemedicine guidelines – for example, requiring at least one live video or phone encounter to establish a doctor-patient relationship before prescribing controlled substances or certain high-risk meds. The DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) is also in the mix when it comes to controlled substances (though ED drugs are not controlled, testosterone is Schedule III in the U.S.). During COVID, the Ryan Haight Act requirements (normally mandating an in-person exam before controlled substances are prescribed) were waived, leading to online ADHD and testosterone clinics booming. Now the DEA is evaluating how to reinstate safeguards without stifling telemedicine. Recent high-profile cases (like the telehealth mental health company Cerebral being investigated for unsafe stimulant prescribing) demonstrate that authorities will intervene if patterns of harm emerge.

In summary, the industry currently operates in a partially regulated space. Legitimate DTC telehealth companies do follow many rules – they use licensed providers, legitimate pharmacies, and at least nominally screen patients – but there are clear gaps in oversight (especially around advertising, data privacy, and the quality of care being delivered). Both federal and state regulators in the U.S. are becoming more aware of these gaps. The future will likely bring tighter rules to ensure that the online prescription process is held to the same standards of safety and transparency as traditional healthcare.

Quality Control: Are Patients Getting Safe and Effective Treatment?

A crucial aspect of this discussion is quality control – both in the prescribing process and in the products being delivered.

Provider Quality and Guidelines: One concern is whether the healthcare professionals working for these platforms adhere to clinical guidelines. In traditional settings, a physician treating ED might follow guidelines from the American Urological Association or Sexual Medicine Society, which recommend things like screening for cardiac risk, counseling on lifestyle changes, and considering second-line therapies if PDE5 inhibitors fail. Do online prescribers follow these steps? The evidence suggests not always. As mentioned, providers in secret-shopper studies were quick to offer medications outside of guidelines (e.g., testosterone for a normal patient). Additionally, the study of 15 DTC ED sites found only 4 out of 15 (27%) even stated that physicians (MDs) would be the ones doing consults. Many use nurse practitioners or physician assistants; while these professionals can be excellent, the level of training and specialization in men’s health might vary. The majority of sites (53%) indicated the customer would only talk to a provider if the provider felt it necessary or if required by law – implying that if everything checks out on the form, you may never interact live at all. That limits a patient’s ability to ask questions or for a provider to probe deeper. Quality assuranceon these platforms largely happens behind the scenes: some companies have internal audits, checking a percentage of consultations for errors, or they use algorithms that flag worrisome answers. But much of this is proprietary. Unlike a clinic, which might have peer review meetings or morbidity & mortality conferences, an online startup might be learning as it goes, without established peer oversight. One encouraging note: published analyses (like Nagappan et al.’s review) have raised these issues, and the mere fact that studies and media are scrutinizing them could push companies to improve standards. Some platforms now explicitly mention that they follow “evidence-based” protocols and that their providers are trained in the specific domain (e.g., some have urologists or endocrinologists overseeing men’s health protocols). Still, it is wise for patients to approach these services with a bit of healthy skepticism and to do their homework on the company’s reputation.

Medication Authenticity and Safety: For the medications themselves, quality control is paramount. The good news is that the major DTC platforms in the U.S. partner with legitimate, licensed pharmacies – often mail-order pharmacies that dispense FDA-approved generics. If you get sildenafil or tadalafil from Hims, Roman, or a similar service, you are likely receiving a standard generic pill made by a reputable manufacturer. Those companies have a lot to lose if they supply counterfeit drugs. In fact, some telehealth providers tout their quality measures: for instance, Hims stated that for their compounded weight-loss drug they provide Certificates of Analysis on the ingredients to assure customers of purity. One can expect similar care for compounded ED meds (they would use FDA-registered suppliers for raw sildenafil, etc.). However, not all online sellers are equal. Illicit websites often sell unapproved “herbal Viagra” or imported medications of dubious origin. These have been found to contain variable amounts of actual drug or even dangerous adulterants. Even within compounding, there can be variation. Potency might not be as exact as in a factory-produced pill; one troche might have a bit more sildenafil than the next. The risk of contamination is lower for non-sterile products like pills or troches than for injectables, but it isn’t zero. Patients should ensure any online pharmacy or telehealth service they use is properly licensed in the US (look for VIPPS accreditation or LegitScript approval). One quick check is verifying if the pharmacy is listed on the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) site as a safe practice.

Misleading Supplements: Another quality issue is the sale of supplements or products with unsupported claims. Many men’s health sites don’t stop at FDA-approved meds; they offer boutique supplements (often vitamins, herbal mixes, or over-the-counter items) for “boosting libido” or “testosterone support.” These are usually not harmful in themselves, but they can be a waste of money and give a false sense of security. The supplement industry is even less regulated – unless a product is found to be hazardous, the FDA doesn’t pre-approve supplements. Telehealth companies sometimes bundle these with prescriptions (e.g., a plan that includes prescription finasteride for hair loss plus a biotin gummy vitamin – the latter has debatable efficacy). Quality control in this case means truthful advertising. If a service suggests that a certain supplement will dramatically improve sexual performance, that veers into questionable territory. Regulators (FTC) can intervene if claims are outright false or cannot be substantiated.

Follow-Up and Continuity of Care: A high-quality healthcare experience doesn’t end at the prescription pad – it includes follow-up to see if the treatment worked and to manage any issues. Here is where DTC telehealth often falls short. Many platforms are transactional: they aim to deliver a product. Once the product is shipped, the onus is largely on the patient to reach out if there’s a problem. Some patients might not bother, or they might discontinue the medication without telling the platform why (meaning the provider never learns about that adverse reaction or lack of effect). This breaks the feedback loop essential for quality improvement. Contrast that with a typical doctor’s care: you’d have a follow-up appointment in a few weeks to discuss if the ED medication helped, if dose adjustments are needed, or if you had side effects. Online, a patient might just give up or switch to another company’s offering without any provider truly monitoring. That said, a few telehealth companies are implementing more robust follow-up – sending automated check-ins (“How is the medication working for you?”) or offering easy ways to schedule a consult to discuss changes. Ensuring continuity of care is a work in progress. Ultimately, some observers suggest that the best model might be a hybrid: where DTC services handle the initial access and convenience, but then loop patients back into traditional healthcare for ongoing management (for example, sharing a consult note with the patient’s primary care doctor – something rarely done right now but ideal for safety).

In conclusion, quality control in this industry is variable. The best actors are likely providing genuine medications and at least basic medical screening, whereas the worst actors (especially fully unregulated overseas sellers) present serious risks of poor-quality drugs and dangerously lax prescribing. Patients and healthcare professionals should demand transparency – about who is prescribing, what their qualifications are, what pharmacy is filling the drug, and what to expect in terms of follow-up. As regulators increase oversight, we can expect (and hope) that the overall quality will improve, weeding out rogue operators and setting minimum standards for safe telehealth prescribing.

Is This the Future of Healthcare? – Balancing Innovation and Patient Safety

The explosive growth of online men’s health services is emblematic of a broader trend in medicine: the push toward greater convenience, patient autonomy, and technology-driven solutions. Is this model – quick online consults and direct-to-doorstep prescriptions – the future of healthcare? In many ways, yes, but it comes with significant caveats.

A Lasting Shift: There is broad agreement that telehealth in general is here to stay. Patients and providers alike have seen the benefits of remote care for many conditions. For men’s sexual health, in particular, the online model has tapped into a previously unmet need: treating sensitive, quality-of-life issues in a way that patients find accessible. The demand isn’t going away – if anything, the success of companies like Ro and Hims (some of which have achieved multibillion-dollar valuations and massive user bases) shows that the market has permanently changed. Younger generations, accustomed to doing everything on their phones, may prefer a digital health service over establishing a traditional relationship with a doctor for certain straightforward needs. The convenience factor and destigmatization effect cannot be underestimated. So yes, the future will include online prescribing as a key component of healthcare delivery, especially for well-defined, low-complexity issues.

Integration with Traditional Care: However, the current paradigm might evolve to better integrate with traditional healthcare rather than completely bypass it. We are likely to see a hybrid model become the norm. For example, a patient might get his initial ED meds online for speed and privacy, but then his primary care doctor is notified or involved in follow-up. Some forward-thinking health systems are already partnering with or creating their own telehealth extensions to capture this demand while maintaining continuity. The ideal future state would combine the best of both worlds: the efficiency and accessibility of DTC telehealth with the comprehensiveness and safety net of in-person care. This could mean telehealth companies improving their screening protocols and forging partnerships (e.g., referring a complex patient to a specialist rather than just saying “sorry we can’t help,” or sharing data with the patient’s consent). It could also mean regulators mandating certain standards, like requiring platforms to ask permission to send a summary to the patient’s regular doctor, or requiring a video consult for higher-risk situations.

Consumer-Driven Healthcare and Empowerment: The rise of these services reflects a consumer-driven approach to healthcare. Patients are behaving like shoppers: comparing prices of hair loss treatments, reading user reviews of ED meds, and choosing providers based on convenience and customer experience. This can drive innovation – companies strive to offer a better, more user-friendly service than their competitors. We’ve seen innovations like AI chatbots triaging patient questions and personalized treatment plans emerge from this competitive space. In the future, we may see even more personalization (e.g., genetic testing to find which ED drug works best for an individual, offered as part of a telehealth package). Empowered patients who take initiative in their care is a positive development overall. But with empowerment comes the need for good information – otherwise, patients may make choices based on marketing rather than medical advice. Ensuring that these platforms provide high-quality, evidence-based information (and not just a sales pitch) will be crucial if they are to truly be part of healthcare’s future and not just a fad.

Regulation Catching Up: The future of this industry will also be shaped by how regulation catches up, as discussed. We may see new laws that explicitly define how telehealth can advertise, how it must verify patient identity, how data must be protected, and perhaps even minimum practice standards (like how detailed the medical questionnaire should be or which medications are appropriate for online-only treatment). Ideally, industry self-regulation should improve too: a coalition of reputable telehealth providers could establish best practices, sort of an “approved telehealth provider” program, to assure consumers of safety. This could weed out bad actors and build trust in the model.

Potential Pitfalls: There are scenarios to avoid in the future. One is the commoditization of healthcare to the point that patients are just customers and prescriptions are just products. If unchecked, this could erode the therapeutic relationship and the preventive aspect of medicine. We don’t want a future where men treat their health like ordering fast food – quick fixes without understanding the health implications. Another pitfall is fragmentation of care: if a patient gets different meds from different online services (one for ED, another for anxiety, another for hair loss) and none of the providers know about the others, drug interactions or holistic health considerations could fall through the cracks. There’s a reason the traditional model of primary care as a “home” exists. The challenge for the future is to create a new kind of healthcare “home” that might be virtual yet still cohesive.

Optimism with Caution: In many ways, what we are witnessing is a part of the future of healthcare – making it more consumer-friendly, efficient, and accessible. It has enormous upside if done right: more people getting treated for conditions that matter to them, less unmet need due to embarrassment or inconvenience, and possibly even cost savings if competitive markets drive prices down (the cost of generic meds via these platforms is already quite low, as noted). But the cautionary tales we’ve discussed – from patients put in danger to ethical quandaries – highlight that evidence-based medicine and patient safety must remain front and center. The involvement of experienced healthcare professionals, the use of clinical guidelines, and appropriate oversight will determine if this is a future we embrace or one we approach warily.

In conclusion, the landscape of men’s sexual health treatment is undergoing a transformative shift. For patients, these services can be both a blessing and a risk – offering newfound freedom and confidentiality, yet requiring them to be more vigilant about the care they receive. For healthcare providers, it’s a wake-up call that patient expectations are changing; many men clearly desire more convenient options, and if the traditional system doesn’t provide them, startups will. For regulators and policymakers, the task is to strike a balance that fosters innovation and access while protecting patients from harm. The genie is out of the bottle – online prescribing for ED and libido is likely to stay. The goal now is to ensure this genie becomes a force for good healthcare, not a wildcard. With sensible regulations, higher industry standards, and informed patients, the “good” can outweigh the “bad and ugly” in this brave new world of men’s health care.

Subscribe to our weekly blog here:

References

1. Musumeci L. The Murky World of Direct-to-Consumer Telehealth. Public Health Post. June 7, 2024. Accessed September 30, 2025. 
2. Brink SM, Iarajuli T, Shin D. Characteristics of direct-to-consumer platforms offering erectile dysfunction treatment. Sex Med. 2023;11(4):qfad038. Published Aug 2, 2023. 
3. Trolle Lagerros Y, et al. Combined use of PDE5 inhibitors and nitrates in men with coronary disease: association with adverse outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024;83(3):. (Study summarized in ACC News Story Jan 18, 2024)
4. Nagappan A, et al. Ethical issues with direct-to-consumer telemedicine: a review of the literature. Telemed Rep.2023. (Findings summarized by Musumeci).
5. Carr T. Amid Regulatory Gaps, Telehealth Prescribers Flourish. Undark Magazine. November 1, 2023. 
6. Dubin JM, et al. Evaluation of testosterone prescribing via men’s health telemedicine platforms using a simulated patient. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(12):1337-1339. 
7. Moore A. Regulator takes action against four online pharmacies over patient safety fears. Pharmaceutical Journal. April 6, 2017. 
8. ABC News. Super Bowl ad for Hims & Hers’ weight loss drug sparks backlash. February 11, 2025. (FDA quote on compounded drugs)
9. Reuters. US FTC investigating Hims & Hers over advertising and cancellation practices. Reuters News. August 14, 2025. 
10.  Editors. FDA approves Viagra (This Day in History – March 27, 1998). . Published Nov 24, 2009; updated May 27, 2025.