Arizona health care leaders have a date to watch: Dec. 31, 2026. A federal rule published Dec. 31, 2025, and effective Jan. 1, 2026, preserves temporary telemedicine flexibilities for prescribing controlled medications through that date.
Under the extension, a DEA-registered practitioner may prescribe Schedule II through V controlled substances through a qualifying telemedicine encounter without first conducting an in-person medical evaluation, provided federal conditions are met. The prescription still must serve a “legitimate medical purpose,” be issued in the usual course of professional practice, and comply with federal and state law.
The rule is temporary, not a permanent rewrite of the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act. Without another lawful pathway, federal restrictions that generally require an in-person evaluation could again govern many new practitioner-patient relationships. The Federal Register calls that risk the “telemedicine cliff.”
For Arizona, the issue affects rural access, clinical staffing, pharmacy operations, technology investment, and virtual care business models.
What the Extension Preserves
The fourth temporary extension continues broad federal flexibilities first adopted during the COVID-19 public health emergency. HHS reported that more than 7 million controlled-medication prescriptions were issued through telemedicine in 2024 without a prior in-person visit, illustrating how deeply remote prescribing has become embedded in care delivery.
The extension does not override state licensing rules, professional standards, privacy obligations, or the need for appropriate evaluation and follow-up. It also does not guarantee that the current approach will continue after 2026.
Two narrower final rules address defined circumstances involving buprenorphine treatment and Department of Veterans Affairs patients. The broader pathway for practitioners treating patients they have never examined in person remains unresolved. DEA has proposed a special-registration framework, but its final requirements may change.
That distinction matters in models combining telehealth, laboratory testing, and home delivery. Patients evaluating remote hormone services can learn about the process used by one provider-led model, then compare it with safeguards that should matter across the market: who reviews the laboratory data, how candidacy is determined, what follow-up is provided, and when in-person care becomes necessary. Making a workflow visible is not the same as promising qualification or a particular outcome.
DEEPER DIVE: Read all the Ranking Arizona Top 10 lists here
INDUSTRY INSIGHTS: Want more news like this? Get our free newsletter here
Why Testosterone Care Is Part of the Debate
Testosterone is a Schedule III controlled substance, so the federal deadline directly affects some at-home hormone-care workflows. Its classification does not make virtual care inherently appropriate or inappropriate. It means the prescribing process must satisfy controlled-substance rules and ordinary clinical standards.
The Endocrine Society recommends diagnosing hypogonadism only in men with compatible symptoms or signs and consistently low testosterone concentrations. It also recommends confirmation with a repeat morning fasting total testosterone measurement and evaluation of the cause.
A telehealth platform can remove travel and scheduling barriers, but a questionnaire alone cannot establish a diagnosis. Patients should know which clinician is responsible, what testing is required, how risks and alternatives are discussed, and how results and symptoms will be monitored.
Why Arizona Has More at Stake
Arizona’s geography strengthens the case for a responsible remote-care pathway. The state’s revised 2026 Rural Health Transformation Program narrative estimates that 785,992 Arizonans, or about 10.8% of the population, live in rural communities. It identifies seven of Arizona’s 15 counties as entirely rural and puts rural population density at about 7.7 people per square mile.
An appointment in these communities may require substantial driving and missed work. The same state planning document reports that rural residents travel an average of 20.5 miles to reach a hospital. Telehealth can reduce that burden and extend clinicians’ reach, particularly for follow-up visits and services that do not require a hands-on examination.
It cannot replace laboratories, pharmacies, urgent care, imaging, or in-person examinations when clinically indicated. Arizona’s strongest model is therefore hybrid: Each part of care should occur in the setting where it can be delivered safely.
What Arizona Law Adds
Arizona law adds another layer. Under A.R.S. Section 36-3602, providers generally must obtain and document informed consent before delivering telehealth care, subject to exceptions. Telehealth records and patient information also receive existing confidentiality protections.
The statute generally prevents state regulatory boards from requiring an in-person examination before most prescriptions unless federal law specifically requires one. Schedule II drugs are different: They may be prescribed only after an in-person or audiovisual examination and only as federal and state law allow. Arizona law does not authorize prescribing what federal law prohibits.
A.R.S. Section 36-3606 also permits certain providers who are not licensed in Arizona to serve patients in the state through an interstate telehealth-registration pathway. Conditions include proof of out-of-state licensure and liability coverage, compliance with Arizona standards of care, and, before prescribing a controlled substance, registration with Arizona’s controlled-substances prescription monitoring program. Statutory exceptions apply, so organizations should evaluate each clinician’s circumstances.
What Health Care Businesses Should Do in 2026
Providers should audit controlled-substance workflows now. They need to distinguish patients who have received an in-person evaluation from the prescribing practitioner from those who have not, because the Ryan Haight Act treats those relationships differently. They should also verify clinician licenses, DEA registrations, prescribing authority, pharmacy arrangements, consent procedures, and record retention.
Organizations should prepare for several possibilities: another extension, a finalized special-registration system, or a return to narrower federal exceptions. The 2025 proposal contemplated multiple registration categories, state-specific registrations, and added recordkeeping and reporting. Those details are useful for planning, but are not final law.
Technology vendors require equal scrutiny. HHS says covered providers and health plans must use telehealth technologies that comply with HIPAA and work with vendors willing to enter appropriate business associate agreements. Identity verification, secure messaging, and audit trails are operational safeguards, not optional features.
Patients can look for warning signs, too. Guaranteed eligibility, prescribing before meaningful review, an unidentified clinician, unclear pharmacy information, and no continuing monitoring should prompt questions. Responsible remote care should explain how treatment is evaluated, supervised, and escalated to in-person care.
Building a Durable Policy
A permanent framework should preserve virtual access when evidence and patient circumstances support it, while applying stronger controls where diversion, diagnostic uncertainty, or harm is more likely.
At a minimum, it should verify identity and location, confirm the clinician’s authority in the patient’s state, require appropriate testing and documentation, support prescription-monitoring checks, preserve auditable records, and ensure follow-up. An in-person evaluation should remain available when telemedicine limits, abnormal findings, or a patient’s risk profile make it necessary.
Enforcement should focus on operators that minimize evaluation, obscure prescriber responsibility, or treat monitoring as optional. Legitimate providers should be judged by the rigor and traceability of care, not merely by whether the first conversation occurred in the same room.
Conclusion
The Dec. 31 deadline should be a planning catalyst, not a year-end emergency. Arizona has strong reasons to preserve telehealth, including a dispersed rural population, workforce constraints, and patients who need care to fit real-world schedules.
Access and oversight are not opposing goals. A durable policy can protect remote entry points while requiring licensed clinicians, appropriate testing, secure technology, documented judgment, and continuing follow-up. Arizona’s task in 2026 is to prove that convenience and clinical rigor can advance together.
References
- Drug Enforcement Administration and Department of Health and Human Services. “Fourth Temporary Extension of COVID-19 Telemedicine Flexibilities for Prescription of Controlled Medications.” Federal Register, 90 FR 61301, Dec. 31, 2025.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “HHS & DEA Extend Telemedicine Flexibilities for Prescribing Controlled Medications Through 2026,” revised Jan. 2, 2026.
- Drug Enforcement Administration. “DEA Extends Telemedicine Flexibilities to Ensure Continued Access to Care,” Dec. 31, 2025.
- Drug Enforcement Administration. “Special Registrations for Telemedicine and Limited State Telemedicine Registrations.” Proposed rule, 90 FR 6541, Jan. 17, 2025.
- Arizona Revised Statutes, Sections 36-3602 and 36-3606.
- State of Arizona. The State of Arizona’s Rural Health Transformation Program: Revised Project Narrative, Jan. 30, 2026.
- Drug Enforcement Administration. “Drug Scheduling.”
- Endocrine Society. “Testosterone Therapy for Hypogonadism Guideline Resources.”
- Telehealth.HHS.gov. “HIPAA Rules for Telehealth Technology.”
