Columbia University Graduate School students in journalism just published an article worth reading in the Huffington Post. It’s about rogue online pharmacies using YouTube to reach customers and improve SEO. (LegitScript was quoted several times in the article.)

The notion that rogue online pharmacies would post videos on YouTube isn’t surprising; after all, YouTube/Google Video tends to improve SEO, which is of key importance to rogue online pharmacies. The more interesting discussion touches on companies that profit from displaying ads for, or facilitating the displaying of ads for, rogue online pharmacies. Although unpaid search results for rogue online pharmacies are probably protected by the Communications Decency Act, this doesn’t apply to paid ads (also called “sponsored search results”).

One of the approved advertisers that the article discusses is WholesaleVIPClub.com. If you simply visit that domain, it doesn’t appear to have any relationship to online pharmacies. Instead, you have to visit a subdomain, such as cheapmeds.wholesalevipclub.com (or, in the past, soma.wholesalevipclub.com, oxycodone.wholesalevipclub.com, et cetera).

LegitScript’s quarrel with wholevipclub.com isn’t the inclusion of drugs like soma, Xanax, oxycodone and others in the domain name. That isn’t illegal (although it is pretty shady in most cases). And, an Internet pharmacy that simply lists Oxycodone as one of its products isn’t, by virtue of that fact alone, violating the law. (It has to comply with the Ryan Haight Act and other laws, of course.) Rather, we looked at what cheapmeds.wholesalevipclub.com was doing and found that it violated several of our standards in several respects, including referring paid members to websites that violate the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

But the other interesting, and to us disturbing, thing is that it gets Internet users to pay a fee for information that is available for free elsewhere: it is one of at least a dozen websites, mostly run by individuals in Florida, Texas, and overseas, that get you to sign up with a monthly fee, and then just gives you a list of websites that they copied from another online pharmacy verification service that provides that information for free on its own website. It isn’t illegal, but LegitScript’s view on this is that if information is available for free elsewhere, charging a fee for it isn’t looking out for the best interests of the patient. The fact that nearly all of these “referral” websites are registered anonymously at the very least raises an important question: what do the owners of websites like cheapmeds.wholesalevipclub.com have to hide? (Perhaps they don’t want outraged customers to contact them directly once they find out that they paid for information that is available for free elsewhere.)

The U.S. “Department of Justice”http://usdoj.gov announced that a Virginia doctor, Torino Jennings of Mechanicsville, has been indicted for violation of the (federal) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and for tax evasion. At the heart of the indictment was Dr. Jennings alleged filling of prescriptions for Soma (and presumably other drugs), a “legend drug” (non-controlled substance) without ever seeing the patient in person.

DOJ alleges that:

…between 2004 and 2007, (Dr. Jennings) issued between 50,000 and 100,000 prescriptions over the Internet for Soma, and other drugs, to individuals whom he had never performed a physical examination on and had never met…based on forms completed by individuals for online pharmacies. (And) the online pharmacies paid JENNINGS between $5.00 and $7.00 for each prescription he wrote.

There are a couple of interesting and important things about this.

#. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act explicitly made the filling of a controlled substance prescription without ever having seen a patient in person a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. However, there has been substantially more debate about whether existing law prohibits filling a prescription for a non-controlled substance in the same manner.

#. It is interesting that DOJ is basing its prosecution not merely on violation of the FDCA, but also apparently tax evasion.

#. Historically, we’ve seen the average amount that a physician receives per prescription (for controlled substances) based on online consultations in the $2 – $4 range, although certainly sometimes much higher.

So what’s really going on here? Our take: rogue online pharmacy operators have shifted (not entirely, but substantially) to selling non-controlled substances like Soma, tramadol, fioricet, and erectile dysfunction drugs, based on the (we believe) false premise that no in-person examination is usually required.

The U.S. “Department of Justice”http://usdoj.gov announced that a Virginia doctor, Torino Jennings of Mechanicsville, has been indicted for violation of the (federal) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and for tax evasion. At the heart of the indictment was Dr. Jennings alleged filling of prescriptions for Soma (and presumably other drugs), a “legend drug” (non-controlled substance) without ever seeing the patient in person.

DOJ alleges that:

…between 2004 and 2007, (Dr. Jennings) issued between 50,000 and 100,000 prescriptions over the Internet for Soma, and other drugs, to individuals whom he had never performed a physical examination on and had never met…based on forms completed by individuals for online pharmacies. (And) the online pharmacies paid JENNINGS between $5.00 and $7.00 for each prescription he wrote.

There are a couple of interesting and important things about this.

1. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act explicitly made the filling of a controlled substance prescription without ever having seen a patient in person a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. However, there has been substantially more debate about whether existing law prohibits filling a prescription for a non-controlled substance in the same manner.

1. It is interesting that DOJ is basing its prosecution not merely on violation of the FDCA, but also apparently tax evasion.

1. Historically, we’ve seen the average amount that a physician receives per prescription (for controlled substances) based on online consultations in the $2 – $4 range, although certainly sometimes much higher.

So what’s really going on here? Our analysis: rogue online pharmacy operators have shifted (not entirely, but meaningfully) to selling non-controlled substances like Soma, tramadol, fioricet, and erectile dysfunction drugs, based on the (we believe) false premise that no in-person examination is usually required for those drugs, and that they could escape enforcement or regulatory oversight. But Soma, tramadol and other drugs are in the small category of abusable (addictive) drugs that are nevertheless non-controlled substances. It was only a matter of time until federal and state law enforcement, now that the Ryan Haight Act is fully implemented and enforceable, were going to turn their attention to non-controlled substances.

What about the involvement of the IRS and the tax evasion charges? It would probably be a mistake to conclude that if a physician simply reports income obtained in this way, that they will avoid scrutiny. Rather, it’s largely a method that law enforcement uses to go after illicitly obtained revenue, and an additional hammer that the Department of Justice can use.

All of that said, this is an important case to watch. If it fails, it’s going to embolden those who argue that Soma, tramadol, Viagra, Fioricet, Propecia and other drugs can be sold over the Internet by online pharmacies that don’t require you to see the physician (or an associate of the physician) in person. But in that case, a likely result will be a movement to enact federal legislation that expands the Ryan Haight Act requirements to non-controlled substances, to clarify the law on that point. On the other hand, if the prosecution succeeds, it will embolden law enforcement who will see these cases as winnable and a source of asset recovery, and will set some degree of precedent. (However, it will also embolden those who argue that no additional law, or clarification of existing law, is needed.)

The U.S. “Department of Justice”http://usdoj.gov announced that a Virginia doctor, Torino Jennings of Mechanicsville, has been indicted for violation of the (federal) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and for tax evasion. At the heart of the indictment was Dr. Jennings alleged filling of prescriptions for Soma (and presumably other drugs), a “legend drug” (non-controlled substance) without ever seeing the patient in person.

DOJ alleges that:

…between 2004 and 2007, (Dr. Jennings) issued between 50,000 and 100,000 prescriptions over the Internet for Soma, and other drugs, to individuals whom he had never performed a physical examination on and had never met…based on forms completed by individuals for online pharmacies. (And) the online pharmacies paid JENNINGS between $5.00 and $7.00 for each prescription he wrote.

There are a couple of interesting and important things about this.

1. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act explicitly made the filling of a controlled substance prescription without ever having seen a patient in person a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. However, there has been substantially more debate about whether existing law prohibits filling a prescription for a non-controlled substance in the same manner.
2. It is interesting that DOJ is basing its prosecution not merely on violation of the FDCA, but also apparently tax evasion.
3. Historically, we’ve seen the average amount that a physician receives per prescription (for controlled substances) based on online consultations in the $2 – $4 range, although certainly sometimes much higher.

So what’s really going on here? Our analysis: rogue online pharmacy operators have shifted (not entirely, but meaningfully) to selling non-controlled substances like Soma, tramadol, fioricet, and erectile dysfunction drugs, based on the (we believe) false premise that no in-person examination is usually required for those drugs, and that they could escape enforcement or regulatory oversight. But Soma, tramadol and other drugs are in the small category of abusable (addictive) drugs that are nevertheless non-controlled substances. It was only a matter of time until federal and state law enforcement, now that the Ryan Haight Act is fully implemented and enforceable, were going to turn their attention to non-controlled substances.

What about the involvement of the IRS and the tax evasion charges? It would probably be a mistake to conclude that if a physician simply reports income obtained in this way, that they will avoid scrutiny. Rather, it’s largely a method that law enforcement uses to go after illicitly obtained revenue, and an additional hammer that the Department of Justice can use.

All of that said, this is an important case to watch. If it fails, it’s going to embolden those who argue that Soma, tramadol, Viagra, Fioricet, Propecia and other drugs can be sold over the Internet by online pharmacies that don’t require you to see the physician (or an associate of the physician) in person. But in that case, a likely result will be a movement to enact federal legislation that expands the Ryan Haight Act requirements to non-controlled substances, to clarify the law on that point. On the other hand, if the prosecution succeeds, it will embolden law enforcement who will see these cases as winnable and a source of asset recovery, and will set some degree of precedent. (However, it will also embolden those who argue that no additional law, or clarification of existing law, is needed.)

LegitScript does not approve any pharmacy website that facilitates the sale or filling of any prescription drug based solely on an online consultation.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced that a Virginia doctor, Torino Jennings of Mechanicsville, has been indicted for violation of the (federal) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and for tax evasion. At the heart of the indictment was Dr. Jennings alleged filling of prescriptions for Soma (and presumably other drugs), a “legend drug” (non-controlled substance) without ever seeing the patient in person.

DOJ alleges that:

…between 2004 and 2007, (Dr. Jennings) issued between 50,000 and 100,000 prescriptions over the Internet for Soma, and other drugs, to individuals whom he had never performed a physical examination on and had never met…based on forms completed by individuals for online pharmacies. (And) the online pharmacies paid JENNINGS between $5.00 and $7.00 for each prescription he wrote.

There are a couple of interesting and important things about this.

1. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act explicitly made the filling of a controlled substance prescription without ever having seen a patient in person a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. However, there has been substantially more debate about whether existing law prohibits filling a prescription for a non-controlled substance in the same manner.
2. It is interesting that DOJ is basing its prosecution not merely on violation of the FDCA, but also apparently tax evasion.
3. Historically, we’ve seen the average amount that a physician receives per prescription (for controlled substances) based on online consultations in the $2 – $4 range, although certainly sometimes much higher.

So what’s really going on here? Our analysis: rogue online pharmacy operators have shifted (not entirely, but meaningfully) to selling non-controlled substances like Soma, tramadol, fioricet, and erectile dysfunction drugs, based on the (we believe) false premise that no in-person examination is usually required for those drugs, and that they could escape enforcement or regulatory oversight. But Soma, tramadol and other drugs are in the small category of abusable (addictive) drugs that are nevertheless non-controlled substances. It was only a matter of time until federal and state law enforcement, now that the Ryan Haight Act is fully implemented and enforceable, were going to turn their attention to non-controlled substances.

What about the involvement of the IRS and the tax evasion charges? It would probably be a mistake to conclude that if a physician simply reports income obtained in this way, that they will avoid scrutiny. Rather, it’s largely a method that law enforcement uses to go after illicitly obtained revenue, and an additional hammer that the Department of Justice can use.

All of that said, this is an important case to watch. If it fails, it’s going to embolden those who argue that Soma, tramadol, Viagra, Fioricet, Propecia and other drugs can be sold over the Internet by online pharmacies that don’t require you to see the physician (or an associate of the physician) in person. But in that case, a likely result will be a movement to enact federal legislation that expands the Ryan Haight Act requirements to non-controlled substances, to clarify the law on that point. On the other hand, if the prosecution succeeds, it will embolden law enforcement who will see these cases as winnable and a source of asset recovery, and will set some degree of precedent. (However, it will also embolden those who argue that no additional law, or clarification of existing law, is needed.)

LegitScript does not approve any pharmacy website that facilitates the sale or filling of any prescription drug based solely on an online consultation.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced that a Virginia doctor, Torino Jennings of Mechanicsville, has been charged for violation of the (federal) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and for tax evasion. At the heart of the indictment was Dr. Jennings alleged filling of prescriptions for Soma (and presumably other drugs), a “legend drug” (non-controlled substance) without ever seeing the patient in person.

DOJ alleges that:

…between 2004 and 2007, (Dr. Jennings) issued between 50,000 and 100,000 prescriptions over the Internet for Soma, and other drugs, to individuals whom he had never performed a physical examination on and had never met…based on forms completed by individuals for online pharmacies. (And) the online pharmacies paid JENNINGS between $5.00 and $7.00 for each prescription he wrote.

There are a couple of interesting and important things about this.

1. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act explicitly made the filling of a controlled substance prescription without ever having seen a patient in person a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. However, there has been substantially more debate about whether existing law prohibits filling a prescription for a non-controlled substance in the same manner.
2. It is interesting that DOJ is basing its prosecution not merely on violation of the FDCA, but also apparently tax evasion.
3. Historically, we’ve seen the average amount that a physician receives per prescription (for controlled substances) based on online consultations in the $2 – $4 range, although certainly sometimes much higher.

So what’s really going on here? Our analysis: rogue online pharmacy operators have shifted (not entirely, but meaningfully) to selling non-controlled substances like Soma, tramadol, fioricet, and erectile dysfunction drugs, based on the (we believe) false premise that no in-person examination is usually required for those drugs, and that they could escape enforcement or regulatory oversight. But Soma, tramadol and other drugs are in the small category of abusable (addictive) drugs that are nevertheless non-controlled substances. It was only a matter of time until federal and state law enforcement, now that the Ryan Haight Act is fully implemented and enforceable, were going to turn their attention to non-controlled substances.

What about the involvement of the IRS and the tax evasion charges? It would probably be a mistake to conclude that if a physician simply reports income obtained in this way, that they will avoid scrutiny. Rather, it’s largely a method that law enforcement uses to go after illicitly obtained revenue, and an additional hammer that the Department of Justice can use, whether at trial or in plea negotiations.

All of that said, this is an important case to watch. If it fails, it’s going to embolden those who argue that Soma, tramadol, Viagra, Fioricet, Propecia and other drugs can be sold over the Internet by online pharmacies that don’t require you to see the physician (or an associate of the physician) in person. But in that case, a likely result will be a movement to enact federal legislation that expands the Ryan Haight Act requirements to non-controlled substances, to clarify the law on that point. On the other hand, if the prosecution succeeds, it will embolden law enforcement who will see these cases as winnable and a source of asset recovery, and will set some degree of precedent. (However, it will also embolden those who argue that no additional law, or clarification of existing law, is needed.)

LegitScript does not approve any pharmacy website that facilitates the sale or filling of any prescription drug based solely on an online consultation.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced that a Virginia doctor, Torino Jennings of Mechanicsville, has been charged for violation of the (federal) Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and for tax evasion. At the heart of the indictment was Dr. Jennings alleged filling of prescriptions for Soma (and presumably other drugs), a “legend drug” (non-controlled substance) without ever seeing the patient in person.

DOJ alleges that:

…between 2004 and 2007, (Dr. Jennings) issued between 50,000 and 100,000 prescriptions over the Internet for Soma, and other drugs, to individuals whom he had never performed a physical examination on and had never met…based on forms completed by individuals for online pharmacies. (And) the online pharmacies paid JENNINGS between $5.00 and $7.00 for each prescription he wrote.

There are a couple of interesting and important things about this.

1. The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act explicitly made the filling of a controlled substance prescription without ever having seen a patient in person a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. However, there has been substantially more debate about whether existing law prohibits filling a prescription for a non-controlled substance in the same manner.
2. It is interesting that DOJ is basing its prosecution not merely on violation of the FDCA, but also apparently tax evasion.
3. Historically, we’ve seen the average amount that a physician receives per prescription (for controlled substances) based on online consultations in the $2 – $4 range, although certainly sometimes much higher.

So what’s really going on here? Our analysis: rogue online pharmacy operators have shifted (not entirely, but meaningfully) to selling non-controlled substances like Soma, tramadol, fioricet, and erectile dysfunction drugs, based on the (we believe) false premise that no in-person examination is usually required for those drugs, and that they could escape enforcement or regulatory oversight. But Soma, tramadol and other drugs are in the small category of abusable (addictive) drugs that are nevertheless non-controlled substances. It was only a matter of time until federal and state law enforcement, now that the Ryan Haight Act is fully implemented and enforceable, were going to turn their attention to non-controlled substances.

What about the involvement of the IRS and the tax evasion charges? It would probably be a mistake to conclude that if a physician simply reports income obtained in this way, that they will avoid scrutiny. Rather, it’s largely a method that law enforcement uses to go after illicitly obtained revenue, and an additional hammer that the Department of Justice can use, whether at trial or in plea negotiations.

All of that said, this is an important case to watch. If it fails, it’s going to embolden those who argue that Soma, tramadol, Viagra, Fioricet, Propecia and other drugs can be sold over the Internet by online pharmacies that don’t require you to see the physician (or an associate of the physician) in person. But in that case, a likely result will be a movement to enact federal legislation that expands the Ryan Haight Act requirements to non-controlled substances, to clarify the law on that point. On the other hand, if the prosecution succeeds, it will embolden law enforcement who will see these cases as winnable and a source of asset recovery, and will set some degree of precedent. (However, it will also embolden those who argue that no additional law, or clarification of existing law, is needed.)

LegitScript does not approve any pharmacy website that facilitates the sale or filling of any prescription drug based solely on an online consultation.