Millions of patients currently get medication for ADHD, opioid use disorder, and other conditions through a telehealth visit that never required an in-person exam first. That arrangement, a pandemic-era emergency measure, is still technically temporary, and it is still not permanent. In January, the DEA and HHS issued a fourth extension of the flexibility, pushing the expiration date to December 31, 2026, while the agencies continue working on rules meant to replace it for good.
For patients and clinics that have built entire treatment models around remote prescribing, that repeated pattern, extension after extension without a final rule, is becoming its own source of uncertainty.
What the Rule Actually Allows
Answer first: under the current extension, a DEA-registered practitioner can prescribe Schedule II through V controlled substances by audio-video telehealth without first conducting an in-person medical evaluation, and can prescribe certain opioid use disorder medications through audio-only visits under the same exception. HHS's official announcement states that more than 7 million prescriptions for controlled medications were issued through telehealth without a prior in-person visit in 2024 alone, a volume that gives a sense of how many active treatment relationships would be disrupted if the flexibility lapsed without a replacement in place.
Before the pandemic, the Ryan Haight Act generally required that in-person exam before a controlled substance could be prescribed remotely. The current flexibility is a suspension of that requirement, not a permanent rewrite of it, which is the distinction driving most of the current uncertainty.
Why the Deadline Keeps Getting Pushed Back
This is the fourth time the agencies have extended the flexibility rather than finalize a permanent rule. A proposed framework, the Special Registration for Telemedicine, would create a formal pathway for telehealth practitioners to keep prescribing controlled substances after the temporary flexibility ends, with added requirements around identity verification, prescription monitoring checks, and recordkeeping. That proposal has been under review since January 2025 without a final version being issued.
HHS has pointed to a documented consequence of past lapses as part of its justification for the repeated extensions: fee-for-service telehealth visits dropped 24 percent following a prior expiration of Medicare telehealth flexibilities in September 2025, before the DEA authority itself lapsed. The agencies cited that decline directly as evidence that abrupt expirations disrupt care rather than simply shifting patients back to in-person visits.
What This Means for Patients in Ongoing Treatment
For someone currently receiving ADHD medication, buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, or another controlled prescription through a telehealth-only relationship, the practical reality right now is stability through the end of 2026, not certainty beyond it. Clinics operating telehealth-first practices are effectively planning around two futures at once: continued flexibility under a finalized Special Registration process, or a reversion to in-person exam requirements that would force many existing patients to schedule an initial visit they have never needed before.
That planning burden falls hardest on patients furthest from a clinic that offers in-person care. PressSphera has covered similar access gaps in mental health and addiction treatment before: the patients most dependent on a remote-only model, rural residents, people without reliable transportation, and those in areas with a shortage of prescribing psychiatrists, are the same patients with the least ability to absorb a sudden return to in-person requirements.
How Patients Ended Up Relying on a Temporary Rule
The original flexibility was never designed to last this long. It began in 2020 as an emergency measure tied to the COVID-19 public health emergency, allowing prescribers to waive the Ryan Haight Act's in-person exam requirement while in-person care was itself restricted. When the public health emergency officially ended in 2023, the DEA faced a choice: let the flexibility lapse immediately, or extend it while it worked out a permanent replacement. It chose to extend, and has now done so four times in a row.
Each extension has come with language describing it as a bridge to a final rule rather than a long-term solution, yet the bridge itself has now been in place longer than the original emergency that created it. That gap between the rule's stated temporary status and its multi-year actual duration is a large part of why clinics have built full-scale telehealth prescribing practices around it rather than treating it as a stopgap.
What Clinics and Patients Can Actually Do Now
Providers currently prescribing under the flexibility are not required to do anything differently before the current deadline. The more useful step is verifying, directly with a clinic or prescriber, whether a treatment plan currently depends entirely on audio-only or audio-video telehealth with no in-person component on file. Patients in that position are the ones most exposed if a permanent rule eventually reinstates some version of the original in-person requirement.
The agencies have said they intend to finalize permanent rules before the new deadline arrives. Given that the same statement accompanied the third extension a year earlier, the more realistic expectation for patients and clinics is that the current flexibility holds through 2026, with the shape of what replaces it still an open question rather than a settled one.
What a Permanent Rule Would Likely Require
The proposed Special Registration framework, if finalized as drafted, would not simply make the current flexibility permanent as-is. It would layer on new requirements: identity verification for both prescriber and patient, mandatory checks of state prescription drug monitoring programs before certain prescriptions are issued, restrictions on which Schedule II medications can be prescribed without any in-person contact, and more detailed recordkeeping obligations for telehealth-only practices. Clinics currently operating under the looser pandemic-era rules would need to adjust their intake and prescribing workflows to meet those standards rather than continue exactly as they do today.
That distinction matters for patients weighing how much to worry about the December deadline. The realistic outcome is not a sudden return to mandatory in-person exams for everyone. It is a more structured version of telehealth prescribing, with more verification steps built in, replacing the emergency-era rules that currently ask for very little beyond a qualifying telehealth visit itself.
Work produced and reviewed by the Article Orbit editorial desk. Every piece published under this byline has been checked against our accuracy, sourcing and disclosure standards before it takes its stop on the line. Corrections and enquiries are welcome and are handled by the desk directly.
View all posts by Article