See a Doctor in Person or Use Telehealth for Medicinal Cannabis?

As access to medicinal cannabis has expanded in Australia, so has the way patients consult with clinicians. Some people attend face-to-face appointments, while others choose telehealth consultations. Both pathways are legally recognised and regulated — but which is better?

The answer depends on the individual, the condition being assessed, and the level of clinical complexity involved. Let’s explore the pros and cons of each.

Seeing a Doctor in Person

There is something reassuring about sitting in the same room as your doctor. For many patients, face-to-face care feels more thorough and personal.

Pros of in-person consultations

A physical examination can be performed where relevant.
Non-verbal communication is easier to observe.
It may feel more comprehensive for complex medical histories.
Some patients simply prefer traditional appointments.
Certain regulatory or documentation requirements may be more straightforward.

For patients with complicated health backgrounds, multiple medications, significant psychiatric history, or unclear diagnoses, an in-person consultation can allow for more detailed clinical assessment.

Cons of in-person consultations

Travel time and cost can be significant, particularly in regional areas.
Availability of experienced prescribers may be limited.
Longer wait times are common.
Mobility issues or chronic pain may make travel difficult.

For patients living rurally or managing persistent symptoms, accessing an appropriate prescriber locally may not always be practical.

Using Telehealth for Medicinal Cannabis Assessment

Telehealth has become a standard part of Australian healthcare. It is legally recognised and widely used across general practice and specialist care.

Pros of telehealth consultations

Improved accessibility, particularly in rural or remote areas.
Reduced travel burden for patients with chronic pain or fatigue.
Faster appointment availability in many cases.
Convenience and flexibility around work or family commitments.
Easier ongoing follow-up and monitoring.

For many chronic conditions, much of the assessment is history-based rather than examination-based. In these cases, a structured telehealth consultation can allow a clinician to review prior treatments, assess suitability, discuss risks and determine whether prescribing pathways are appropriate.

Cons of telehealth consultations

No physical examination can be performed.
Relies heavily on patient-reported history and documentation.
Some patients may feel less connected compared to in-person care.
Technology issues can occasionally disrupt consultations.
In certain cases, additional face-to-face assessment may still be required.

Telehealth is not appropriate for every situation. A responsible clinician will identify when an in-person review is necessary and advise accordingly.

So Which Is Better?

There isn’t a universal answer.

For straightforward cases with established diagnoses and documented treatment history, telehealth may be entirely appropriate. For more complex presentations — especially where diagnostic clarity is limited or significant risk factors are present — in-person assessment may offer advantages.

Importantly, the mode of consultation does not remove regulatory requirements. Whether in person or via telehealth, clinicians must:

• Conduct a thorough medical assessment
• Review prior treatments
• Assess mental health history
• Evaluate risk factors and contraindications
• Follow TGA regulatory pathways
• Provide structured follow-up and monitoring

The quality of care depends more on the clinical process than on whether the consultation occurs online or in a consulting room.

A Balanced Approach

In many cases, a blended model works well. An initial in-person assessment may be followed by telehealth reviews. Alternatively, telehealth may be used first, with referral for face-to-face review if required.

The key question is not “Which is easier?” but rather “Which is clinically appropriate for this individual?”

Final Thoughts

Medicinal cannabis prescribing in Australia is regulated and requires careful assessment regardless of consultation format. Telehealth has improved accessibility and convenience, particularly for those living with chronic conditions. In-person consultations may offer additional reassurance or examination where needed. Maybe look to combine both 🙂