We are building an asynchronous telehealth programme and we are looking for the physician who will define what good care looks like inside it — and who will put their name to that definition.
This is a medical-director role in the literal sense: the clinical policy of the programme is yours to set, and the platform is built so that it cannot operate until you have set it. Patient-facing clinical content, asynchronous review standards, the formulary, and the approve-or-decline criteria all sit with you.
DEA registration is not required. The initial formulary is limited and contains no controlled substances, so a DEA registration is not a screening criterion for this role. If that changes we will say so before it does.
We credential properly and we do not start anyone on a provisional file. Nine items must be verified and on record before your first case:
Alongside those, as their own records:
Compensation is outcome-blind. Nothing you earn varies with whether you prescribe, how often you approve, or how much the business sells. We are stating it this plainly, this early, because it is unusual enough that a candidate would otherwise discover it late — and because it is not a policy we could quietly relax. The payout system has no connection to prescription records at all; it is not that we must not pay that way, it is that the software cannot.
A fixed amount for the medical-director role itself, independent of case volume.
Time-based, benchmarked independently. Review time is review time whatever it concludes.
A flat amount per terminal decision. It pays exactly the same for an approval and for a denial — there is no rate difference between the two.
Rates are set at independently benchmarked fair market value and the structure is agreed before you begin. If per-script or volume-linked economics are what you are looking for, this is a genuine mismatch and we would rather you knew now than after three conversations.
Before any state goes live, the platform requires two separate sign-offs from two separate people: a legal-permissibility sign-off, and a clinical-sufficiency attestation recording the attestor name, licence number and states. Counsel cannot attest to standard of care, and the medical director cannot certify legal permissibility. They are enforced as two distinct authenticated principals, so neither can be stood in for by the other.
In practice: the clinical half of launching this programme is not something you advise on. It is something you sign, under your own licence, and nothing opens until you do.
Send a CV and a short note — the states you are licensed in, whether you participate in the IMLC, and your experience with asynchronous review. If you have directed a telehealth programme before, tell us what you would have done differently.
Apply — email your CV