Is the Eucalyptus’ men’s health online-only operator taking advantage of the lack of a national framework for telehealth services? It certainly looks that way.
Men’s health online-only telehealth operator Pilot – owned and operated by Eucalyptus – has refused to address claims it is taking advantage of the lack of a nationally recognised framework for safety and quality across online-only telehealth services by advertising prescription-only drugs on social media.
Last Saturday, News Corp publication The Australian revealed that Pilot used the run-up to Father’s Day to encourage its 15,000 Instagram followers to “gift” their father the company’s erectile dysfunction treatments instead of a more traditional gift.
“Father’s Day is right around the corner,” an actor says to the camera. “So if you love your dad, don’t get him socks or a tie, get him something he really wants; get your dad a boner this Father’s Day, with Pilot.
“Pilot’s erectile dysfunction treatments are a great gift for dads everywhere, and if they play their cards right, a great gift for mums too.”
It is illegal to advertise prescription-only medicines – as most of Pilot’s erectile treatments are – in Australia.
This article originally ran on TMR’s sister site, Health Services Daily. TMR readers can sign up for a discounted subscription.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration’s website says:
“The promotion of a health service (including telehealth) as a means to obtain a prescription-only medicine is likely to amount to advertising prescription-only medicines.”
TMR approached Pilot and Eucalyptus for comment today. Here are the questions we asked them:
- How can Pilot justify suggesting to consumers that they give a prescription-only drug to someone for whom the prescription is not written?
- Surely anyone receiving a prescription for a prescription-only drug should be examined by a medical practitioner to rule out any dangerous interactions/allergies/contraindications, at least?
- The TGA said specifically that it was an offence to advertise a therapeutic good that “refers to” a prescription-only medicine – the reference does not even need to be direct. Will Eucalyptus/Pilot/Juniper be desisting from advertising, however indirectly, prescription-only erectile dysfunction and GLP1s as a result of that clarification from the TGA?
- Is Eucalyptus simply making the most of the current lack of a national framework for safety and quality, while at the same time claiming to be promoting such a framework? Can Eucalyptus be accused of making hay while the sun shines?
In response a Pilot spokesperson said:
“Pilot takes compliance and patient safety seriously and regularly reviews its marketing and communications materials with regard to TGA and other requirements,” the statement said.
“Before any prescription is issued or treatment dispensed, every patient of course undergoes a clinical consultation with an Australian-registered health practitioner to determine the most appropriate treatment (if any).
“The Telehealth Best Practice Principles for Australian Online Providers seek to promote a safe and high-quality approach to clinical care across the online telehealth sector.”
The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care is developing national guidelines, but there is as yet no timeframe on those. In a statement to TMRa spokesperson for the TGA said:
“The TGA does not comment on individual matters, including whether they are subject to investigation or compliance action.
“The decision to use a particular medicine should be made between the prescribing medical practitioner and the patient (or caregiver) with informed consent, including a discussion about possible side effects.
“Caregivers should only provide a child/family member with prescription medicines if they have been prescribed to that child/family member by a qualified medical practitioner.
“Advertising, in the context of therapeutic goods, includes any content intended to promote the use or supply (directly or indirectly) of a therapeutic good to the public.
“The TGA does not regulate clinical and prescribing practices. Questions on clinical and prescribing practices should be directed to the Medical Board of Australia and Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA).”
In a statement to TMR, a spokesperson for AHPRA said:
“Prescribing is not a tick and flick exercise – it relies on a practitioner’s skill and judgement.
Related
“Consultations enable a practitioner to ask follow-up questions that help identify the best treatment for a patient. A thorough consultation is the critical link between access to prescribing and patient safety.”
Around the advertising of prescription medicines, the spokesperson said:
“Our advertising rules generally require that advertising is not false or misleading, does not offer gifts or inducements without stating the terms and conditions of the offer, is not a testimonial about a clinical aspect of the service or outcome, does not create an unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment and does not directly or indirectly encourage the indiscriminate or unnecessary use of regulated health services.
“When inappropriate advertising of health services is identified, Ahpra will engage with the advertiser responsible, highlight our concerns, and ask for the advertising to be removed or corrected.
“If registered practitioners are advertising and do not correct their advertising, there may be disciplinary action taken by the relevant National Board.
“Failure to comply with advertising rules can also lead to prosecution of the person in control of the advertising – whether they themselves are a registered practitioner or they are an unregistered person or business advertising health services provided by registered practitioners.
“Ahpra has a rapid regulatory response unit, which was established to address areas of practice where there may be risks of harm that are not necessarily reported to us as notifications.
“One key area of focus for the unit is the reports of very high numbers of prescriptions for medicines where it is difficult to see how the prescriber could be meeting expectations to assess and provide treatment options to patients consistent with quality patient care.
“We have a range of different engagement and regulatory approaches to respond to concerns and support compliance.”
In a statement to News Corp on Saturday, a TGA spokesperson made it even clearer when it came to Pilot’s “gifting” campaign, saying it was an offence to advertise a therapeutic good that “refers to” a prescription-only medicine.
“If the audience is likely to understand that a prescription-only medicine is being promoted – such as through claims about obtaining a prescription for a specific health condition – the TGA may determine that the content constitutes unlawful advertising,” he said.
“Content that encourages consumers to seek a prescription medicine, even if the medicine is not named, may be deemed by the TGA to be unlawfully advertising prescription-only medicines.”
The spokesperson also “considers price information for a prescription-only medicine to be an advertisement” for that medicine.
“Pricing information about therapeutic goods is generally considered promotional. Therefore, publishing pricing details for prescription-only ED treatments is likely to contravene the act.
“Any content that promotes the use or supply of prescription medicines – including offers of samples or discounts for bulk purchases – is likely to be unlawful under the act.”
Last week AHPRA released an update expanding existing telehealth guidance for doctors to cover other health professions, like nurse practitioners. The expanded guidance was part of AHPRA’s larger body of work in reigning in “emerging business models focused more on profit than patient safety”.
Late last month, the TGA fined Midnight Health Pty Ltd (Midnight Health) for the alleged unlawful advertising of prescription-only weight-loss medicines in contravention of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.
“Midnight Health operated telehealth platforms such as Youly, Stagger, and hub.health where it advertised prescription-only weight-loss medicines to the public between June 2024 and January 2025. The websites allegedly promoted the use and supply of Schedule 4 prescription-only medicines, including tirzepatide and semaglutide,” said the TGA announcement.
“The advertisements also made unapproved references to the treatment of serious diseases or conditions, such as anxiety and stroke, which are considered prohibited and restricted representations under the Act. Prohibited and restricted representations are not permitted in advertising for therapeutic goods without prior approval or permission from the TGA.
“The TGA will continue to take action where serious non-compliance with the Act is identified in accordance with our regulatory compliance framework. This may include issuing infringement notices, directions and prevention notices, or civil or criminal proceedings.”
