1. United States
2. N.J.
3. Letter

I am writing to express strong opposition to any requirement mandating in-person appointments for the treatment of ADHD in New Jersey. For many patients, including myself, this would create an unnecessary and undue burden on access to care. I currently receive treatment through a qualified provider who practices via telehealth and does not maintain a physical office. Requiring in-person visits would force me to find a new provider—not because of any clinical need, but due to an arbitrary administrative requirement. That disruption is not only inconvenient; it risks continuity of care for a condition that depends heavily on consistency and trust between patient and provider. Telehealth has proven to be an effective, safe, and accessible model for managing ADHD. It reduces barriers related to transportation, scheduling, and geographic limitations—especially for working adults, caregivers, and those in underserved areas. Rolling back this access does not improve care; it restricts it. This type of requirement also disproportionately impacts patients who have already established stable, compliant treatment relationships. Forcing transitions in care increases the likelihood of delays, gaps in medication management, and unnecessary stress—outcomes that run counter to good clinical practice. If the goal is responsible prescribing and patient safety, there are more effective ways to achieve that without imposing a blanket in-person mandate. Provider accountability, monitoring protocols, and existing telehealth standards already support appropriate care delivery. I strongly urge you to reconsider any policy that would require in-person visits for ADHD treatment. Access to care should be expanded—not restricted—especially when safe, effective alternatives are already in place.