GLP-1 Telehealth Intake Questions: What FDA Labels Mean

A GLP-1 telehealth intake form should identify the specific product under consideration, ask about its contraindications and relevant warnings, reconcile current medications, and capture pregnancy and procedure information. It should then route affirmative answers to a licensed prescribing clinician. The form can organize clinical information; it cannot independently clear, deny, diagnose, or prescribe for a patient.

What should GLP-1 telehealth intake questions cover?

The FDA label does not create one universal GLP-1 intake form. Wegovy and Zepbound have product-specific indications, contraindications, warnings, precautions, and counseling language. A clinic owner should therefore build the intake around the exact products and indications the program may offer, rather than using a generic “Are you healthy enough for a GLP-1?” question.

A useful intake separates four functions:

1. 1Administrative screening: identity, contact details, physical location, and encounter information.
2. 2Clinical history collection: relevant diagnoses, symptoms, medications, allergies, reproductive status, and planned procedures.
3. 3Clinician evaluation: individualized review, medical-necessity assessment, product selection, and prescribing decisions.
4. 4Consent and education: product-specific risks, telehealth limitations, follow-up expectations, and escalation instructions.

That separation matters commercially as well as clinically. A marketing funnel may collect information before an appointment, but its language should not turn a questionnaire into an automated eligibility determination.

How does the GLP-1 boxed warning affect intake screening?

The boxed warning in current FDA labeling for Wegovy and Zepbound concerns thyroid C-cell tumors observed in rodents; the human relevance is unknown. Both labels contraindicate use in people with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma, or MTC, and in people with Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia syndrome type 2, or MEN 2. The labels also list serious hypersensitivity to the relevant active ingredient or excipients as a contraindication.

For a GLP-1 boxed warning intake screening workflow, ask separate questions rather than relying on a broad thyroid-history field:

• Have you ever been diagnosed with MTC?
• Has a parent, sibling, or child ever been diagnosed with MTC?
• Have you or a family member been diagnosed with MEN 2?
• Have you had a serious allergic reaction to semaglutide, tirzepatide, or an ingredient in the product being considered?
• If yes, what medication or ingredient was involved, what reaction occurred, and when were you treated?

The relevant ingredient depends on the product. Wegovy contains semaglutide, while Zepbound contains tirzepatide. An affirmative answer should create a clinician-review flag and an explanation field. It should not generate a patient-facing “approved” or “denied” result from the software alone.

Which FDA label facts belong in a GLP-1 intake form?

A GLP-1 intake form should collect information that helps the prescriber evaluate the requested indication, contraindications, warnings, precautions, and possible overlapping therapy. The exact fields should be reviewed against the current product labeling used by the clinical program.

Requested indication and health context

Wegovy’s FDA labeling includes chronic weight-management indications and other approved indications, including reduction of major cardiovascular events in certain adults with established cardiovascular disease and a MASH indication in the cited current label. Zepbound is labeled, with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight plus at least one weight-related comorbid condition. Its labeling also includes an indication for moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea in adults with obesity.

An intake should therefore ask what the person is seeking help with, such as weight management, diabetes management, cardiovascular-risk reduction, sleep apnea, or another condition. It should also collect height and weight with the measurement date, relevant weight-related conditions, diabetes status, current diabetes treatment, cardiovascular history where relevant, and any sleep-apnea diagnosis or evaluation relevant to the product under consideration.

A reported BMI should not be presented as an automatic qualification. The prescribing clinician must determine whether the requested product and indication fit the individual history and applicable standard of care.

Warnings and precautions

The label-related history section should give the clinician a usable account of conditions and events that may affect evaluation. Consider separate yes/no questions for:

• Prior pancreatitis.
• Gallstones, cholecystitis, or other gallbladder disease.
• Severe or persistent gastrointestinal disease or symptoms.
• Kidney disease or recent dehydration.
• Diabetes and current glucose-lowering medicines.
• Insulin or insulin-secretagogue use.
• Diabetic retinopathy or recent eye treatment.
• Depression, suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, or major mood changes.
• Planned surgery, endoscopy, general anesthesia, or deep sedation.
• Pregnancy, possible pregnancy, pregnancy plans, and breastfeeding.

The Zepbound label identifies severe gastrointestinal adverse reactions, acute kidney injury associated with volume depletion, acute gallbladder disease, acute pancreatitis, hypersensitivity reactions, hypoglycemia, diabetic retinopathy complications, suicidal behavior or ideation, and pulmonary aspiration during general anesthesia or deep sedation. Wegovy labeling contains similar warnings and precautions, with product-specific wording and section structure.

The intake should not attempt to interpret an answer as a diagnosis. Instead, each affirmative response should produce a structured explanation field, preserve the patient’s wording where appropriate, and route the record to the clinician.

Pregnancy and reproductive-health information

Pregnancy questions should not be buried in a general medical-history page. The Zepbound label states that the drug may cause fetal harm and should be discontinued when pregnancy is recognized. It also includes product-specific counseling related to oral contraceptives after initiation and dose escalation.

A clinic workflow should separately capture current pregnancy, possible pregnancy, plans to become pregnant, and breastfeeding. Where clinically appropriate, it should also support clinician-approved contraception questions and an escalation path before any prescribing decision. Patient materials should use the current product labeling and should not turn a form response into individualized medical advice.

Current and overlapping therapy

Medication reconciliation is a central part of GLP-1 contraindications telehealth intake design. The Wegovy label states that coadministration with another semaglutide-containing product or another GLP-1 receptor agonist is not recommended. The Zepbound label similarly states that coadministration with another tirzepatide-containing product or any GLP-1 receptor agonist is not recommended.

Ask the patient to report:

• Prescription drugs and over-the-counter products.
• Injectable and oral weight-management products.
• Diabetes medications.
• Any semaglutide-containing product.
• Any tirzepatide-containing product.
• Any other GLP-1 receptor agonist.
• Products described as compounded or non-branded.

For each relevant product, request the name, strength if known, frequency, prescriber, whether it is still being used, and last use when clinically relevant. Include “I do not know the name” as an option and allow a medication-list upload for clinician review. The purpose is reconciliation, not substitution advice or product sourcing.

What is the best workflow for a GLP-1 intake form telehealth program?

A useful workflow makes the form a structured handoff rather than a digital prescribing engine.

Build hard stops, not automatic diagnoses

A platform may flag MTC or MEN 2, serious hypersensitivity, pregnancy, suicidal ideation, planned surgery or sedation, overlapping GLP-1 therapy, severe gastrointestinal disease, pancreatitis, or substantial gallbladder history. Those flags should pause the automated path and send the case to a licensed clinician.

The system should not independently diagnose, clear, prescribe, deny treatment, or recommend a product. It should make the record easier for the clinician to evaluate.

Preserve the decision trail

Keep the questionnaire version and date, patient answers, uploaded records, clinician review, follow-up questions, clinical rationale, consent version, product label or medication guide used, physical location, and encounter modality. A versioned record helps the business show which intake and education materials were used when the clinician made the decision.

Oregon’s Medical Board specifically emphasizes identity and location verification, informed consent, clinical history, individualized assessment, continuity of care, and documentation. It also states that treatment based only on an online questionnaire without individualized review and assessment does not meet its acceptable standard of care.

For a broader operating checklist, clinic owners can also review this medical weight loss program compliance checklist and the telehealth-business programs hub.

Can a GLP-1 telehealth program rely on an online questionnaire alone?

An online questionnaire can be one part of a telehealth workflow, but it should not automatically stand in for individualized clinical review. State requirements and standards of care vary, and the patient’s physical location generally matters to the practice of telehealth.

The state examples below illustrate why a national intake template needs a state-aware operating layer:

• In Texas, telemedicine law includes requirements involving the practitioner-patient relationship, informed consent, relevant clinical information, and follow-up in specified circumstances. A Texas workflow should record the technology used, consent, information reviewed, and applicable follow-up steps. Texas APRN practice also depends on Texas licensure or applicable compact privileges and prescriptive-authority requirements.
• In Massachusetts, the Board of Registration in Medicine states that a face-to-face encounter is not required before telemedicine care, but the standard of care is the same as for comparable in-person care. The board also states that a physician practices in Massachusetts when the patient is physically located there.
• In Oregon, an in-person visit is not required to establish or maintain a provider-patient relationship, but the Medical Board warns that form-only treatment without individualized review and assessment is not acceptable. Oregon rules also restrict prescribing based only on an internet sale or form unless an appropriate relationship and standard of care exist.
• In Washington, the Uniform Telemedicine Act applies professional standards associated with comparable in-person care and addresses prescribing, identity verification, documentation, informed consent, confidentiality, privacy, and security. A practitioner-patient relationship may not be established through email, instant messaging, text messaging, or fax alone.

These are state-specific examples, not a national rule. A founder should have the prescribing clinician and the applicable state board or healthcare counsel review the workflow, ownership structure, licensure, delegation, consent, and advertising approach before launch.

How should consent and patient materials describe GLP-1 risks?

Patient materials should identify the medication as having FDA-approved indications while explaining that the clinician must determine whether it is appropriate for the individual. They should state, in product-specific language, that the boxed warning concerns thyroid C-cell tumors observed in rodents and that the relevance to humans is unknown. They should identify MTC and MEN 2 as listed contraindications where applicable to the product label.

Materials should also explain that:

• Treatment is not guaranteed.
• The clinician may request records, laboratory information, an in-person evaluation, or referral.
• Telehealth has limitations and may not be appropriate for every person.
• Planned surgery, anesthesia, or deep sedation should be disclosed to the relevant healthcare professionals.
• Urgent or emergency symptoms require appropriate urgent or emergency care.
• The prescribing clinician, not software, nonclinical staff, or a marketing partner, makes the clinical decision.

Keep marketing copy separate from consent. The FDA has criticized promotional communications that minimize or omit boxed warnings, contraindications, warnings, precautions, and common adverse reactions for GLP-1 products. The FTC likewise states that health-related advertising claims require appropriate substantiation.

Avoid claims such as “safe for everyone,” “no doctor visit needed,” guaranteed weight loss, or “FDA-approved compounded GLP-1.” The approved status of a branded product does not make every program claim, service, or compounded product FDA-approved.

For additional marketing context, see FTC guidance on citing GLP-1 trial results in clinic marketing. Published clinical findings can be discussed only with accurate study context; they do not become promises about a clinic’s patients.

What should a clinic owner evaluate in a GLP-1 intake platform?

Use this buyer checklist before selecting software or an infrastructure partner:

• Does the form identify the exact product and intended indication?
• Can the business update questions when labeling changes?
• Are MTC, MEN 2, hypersensitivity, pregnancy, surgery, overlapping therapy, and major warning-related histories separate fields?
• Does every affirmative response create a clinician-review task rather than an automated outcome?
• Can the patient explain an answer and upload records?
• Does the record preserve form, consent, and label versions?
• Does the system capture the patient’s physical location and encounter modality?
• Can clinical staff document follow-up questions and rationale?
• Are administrative and clinical permissions separated?
• Do patient materials identify the prescribing clinician and telehealth limitations?
• Can marketing, billing, privacy, and cancellation disclosures be managed separately from clinical consent?
• Does the operating model support state-by-state licensure and ownership review?

MDLaunchr is one infrastructure option for founders building branded telehealth programs. The platform can support business operations and workflow, while independently licensed clinicians retain responsibility for clinical evaluation and prescribing decisions. That structure does not eliminate product-label review or state-specific compliance work.

If your next step is evaluating the operational model rather than drafting isolated questions, see the GLP-1 weight management program to review how a branded program can be set up. The program page is not a substitute for clinical, regulatory, or state-specific review.