Janice R. Andrews
US Attorney General Merrick Garland revealed today that Dr. David Brody, the clinical president of Done Global, and CEO Ruthia He have been accused of plotting to dispense stimulants like Adderall without proper medical justification. The Covid-19 pandemic gave rise to a telemedicine start-up based in San Francisco, which is currently embroiled in a scandal involving the unlawful distribution of prohibited narcotics.
Officials said that Dr. Brody was taken into custody in San Rafael, California, and that Ms. He was apprehended in Los Angeles. The two executives may spend up to 20 years in jail if proven guilty of the allegations against them for distribution of banned narcotics. The accusations are made at a time when Adderall, a drug frequently used to treat ADHD symptoms, is in low supply across the US.
According to Nicole Argentieri, principal deputy assistant attorney general, this is the first criminal drug distribution case the Justice Department has prosecuted in connection with telemedicine prescriptions made through a digital health company. She charged the two with illegally enriching themselves by increasing subscription costs and spending millions on false social media marketing.
According to the indictment, He and Brody gave prescribers restricted access to information and told doctors to write prescriptions for drugs even for patients who did not meet the requirements for them medically. To further undermine the credibility of the prescriptions, they also required Done patients to spend no more than thirty minutes with a physician doing an initial examination.
The executives carried out their illicit plan in spite of being aware of posts on social media that explained how to utilize Done to get Adderall and other stimulants quickly, as well as accounts of overdoses and fatalities among Done users. In addition, they are charged with trying to impede justice by deleting emails and documents, as well as scamming Medicare, Medicaid, and pharmacies out of at least $14 million.
This story serves as a reminder of the possibility of telemedicine abuse, especially in situations where regulations are relaxed as they were during the pandemic. The verdict in this case may have a big impact on how telehealth services are regulated in the future.
