# The next telehealth wedge may be the form factor > Strips, tablets, lozenges, pouches, gummies and sprays can create a reason to notice. The format still has to survive the clinical and commercial questions. - Author: Shea Hoffman - Published: 2026-09-17 - Topic: Telehealth & product strategy - Author profile: https://sheahoffman.work/about.md - Commercial context: Shea leads business development for telehealth and peptides at Lucyd (https://www.wearelucyd.com/). I think telehealth founders are underestimating the form factor. Most companies start with the medication. They look at what is selling, find a clinical and pharmacy path, build a familiar intake flow, and then try to create a brand around essentially the same offer other companies already have. That is part of why so many telehealth sites feel interchangeable. The molecule matters. The care matters more. But the way a product enters someone’s life can also create a real reason to pay attention. A weekly needle is one experience. A daily tablet is another. A strip, lozenge, pouch, gummy or spray could create a different ritual again—if the molecule, dose, formulation, evidence and regulatory path actually support it. We are already seeing companies test compounded semaglutide in non-injectable formats. I understand the appeal immediately. “Needle-free” gives the customer a reason to stop. It creates a clean entry point for people who are curious about GLP-1 care but do not want to inject themselves. That does not make every format equivalent. It does make the format strategically interesting. ## The delivery experience can be part of the position The strongest thing about a new form factor is not novelty by itself. It is the customer problem the form factor can solve. A different delivery format may change: - How discreetly someone can use the product. - Whether it fits into travel, shift work or a daily routine. - Whether storage creates friction. - How intimidating it feels to begin. - How easy the instructions are to follow. - What the customer needs from onboarding and ongoing support. - How the product is demonstrated in creative. - What the customer believes the company understands about them. That is a lot more interesting than changing the color of a landing page. [Dissolvd](https://www.dissolvdstrips.com/) is an example I keep coming back to from the supplement side. The company is not merely selling a catalog of ingredients. It has made the oral dissolving strip the center of the product experience: no water, no bulky pills, a visible ritual, and packaging that feels like it belongs in a consumer brand. I like that thinking. It does not prove that every ingredient or peptide is effective in an oral strip. Dissolvd is useful here as a brand and product-experience example, not as evidence that a particular prescription formulation works. The lesson is that the form factor can be more than packaging. It can organize the offer. ## Needle-free is not the same as equivalent This is where the idea needs discipline. There is now an FDA-approved oral Wegovy tablet for adults, alongside the injection. That is strong evidence that non-injectable peptide delivery can be real medicine when the formulation and clinical program support it. It is also a useful reminder that “oral” is not one simple category. The [FDA-approved Wegovy tablet instructions](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2026/218316s007lbl.pdf) require the patient to take the tablet on an empty stomach with no more than four ounces of water, swallow it whole, and wait at least 30 minutes before eating, drinking or taking other oral medications. The approved tablet should not be split, crushed, chewed or dissolved. That is a formulation-specific delivery system with a specific patient ritual. It is not proof that a compounded troche, orally dissolving tablet or strip produces the same exposure or outcome. Compounded drugs are also not FDA approved. The FDA does not review them for safety, effectiveness or quality before marketing. The agency says compounding may be appropriate when an identified patient’s medical need cannot be met by an available approved drug, but the existence of a more marketable format does not create a blanket exception. The legal and promotional environment has become much less forgiving. The FDA says the semaglutide injection shortage is resolved, has described limits on making essentially copies of commercially available drugs, and has warned companies against marketing non-FDA-approved compounded GLP-1 products as generic, the same as an approved drug, or clinically proven to produce the same results. The agency’s [current GLP-1 compounding concerns](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-alerts-and-statements/fdas-concerns-unapproved-glp-1-drugs-used-weight-loss) and [semaglutide shortage guidance](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-alerts-and-statements/fda-clarifies-policies-compounders-national-glp-1-supply-begins-stabilize) are worth reading directly. Changing the route or adding another ingredient may affect the analysis. It does not automatically make the product lawful, effective or commercially durable.
A new form factor can earn the first click. It cannot excuse the second refill.
If efficacy is questionable, the format may still generate interest. It may even acquire customers. But it can also create weak retention, refund pressure, skeptical clinicians, regulatory exposure, and a trust problem that gets more expensive with scale. That is not an argument against experimentation. It is an argument for treating formulation evidence as part of the product, not as paperwork that comes after the marketing idea. ## The opportunity is much bigger than one oral semaglutide offer The exciting part is not “put semaglutide in everything.” The exciting part is that the next generation of peptide and metabolic-health products may create more delivery choices than telehealth companies are planning for today. Tablets, oral films, lozenges, pouches, gummies and nasal sprays all create different consumer expectations. They also create different formulation questions. For any proposed format, I would want answers to at least these questions: 1. **Where is the active ingredient actually absorbed?** A product that dissolves in the mouth is not automatically absorbed through the oral mucosa. 2. **How much of the dose reaches systemic circulation?** Convenience does not establish bioavailability. 3. **Is the molecule stable in the format?** Heat, moisture, saliva, stomach acid, packaging and shelf life can all matter. 4. **Can the dose be manufactured consistently?** A strip, gummy or pouch needs reliable content uniformity, not merely an attractive prototype. 5. **What behavior does the formulation require?** Does the patient need to fast, hold it in place, avoid food, refrigerate it or follow a titration schedule? 6. **What evidence supports the intended use?** Evidence for an ingredient in one route does not automatically transfer to another route. 7. **What is the actual regulatory path?** A supplement, a compounded prescription and an FDA-approved drug are different businesses with different claims and obligations. Some molecules may be excellent candidates for a new format. Some may not be. “Peptide” is not a formulation strategy. ## Plan for the format before the market arrives Founders do not need to wait for the next approval to begin thinking about this. They can build a delivery thesis now. ### Start with a specific person Who has a meaningful problem with the current format? Someone afraid of needles is obvious, but it can go much deeper. Think about people who travel constantly, workers with irregular schedules, patients who need discretion, people already taking many pills, or customers whose routines make refrigeration difficult. The audience should shape the format. The format should not be selected because it looks good in an ad. ### Define the job of the format Is the purpose to make treatment easier to start? Easier to carry? Easier to remember? Easier to administer correctly? Less conspicuous? More compatible with a daily support program? If the answer is only “people will click on it,” the idea is not finished. ### Build the evidence path early Before creative, the team should know what formulation work, stability work, pharmacokinetic evidence, quality controls and clinical support would be needed to make the claims it wants to make. This is also where the company needs qualified pharmacy, clinical and legal owners. A marketing team should understand the constraints. It should not invent the evidence or decide that a dosage form is appropriate. ### Design the care model around the ritual A new format should change more than fulfillment. If the product is daily instead of weekly, adherence support may need to change. If the administration instructions are particular, onboarding needs to teach them. If a format appeals to people who are new to treatment, the company may need more education and a different follow-up rhythm. The [patient relationship still matters](/insights/telehealth-platform-patient-relationship/). A clever delivery system attached to a disposable clinical experience is still a fragile business. ### Pressure-test the economics New form factors can create manufacturing minimums, custom packaging, stability requirements, quality-control costs, cold-chain changes, different shipping economics and more customer support. They can also create a meaningful acquisition advantage. The useful question is not whether the format lowers CPM. It is whether the full product experience improves enough of the model—conversion, adherence, retention, contribution margin or referral—to justify the complexity. ## The first mover advantage is not simply being first There will be a rush when a compelling new molecule, indication or delivery format becomes available. Most companies will move in the same predictable order: add it to the menu, build a product page, turn on ads, and say they offer the latest option. That advantage will disappear quickly. The more durable advantage belongs to the company that already understands who the format is for, what problem it solves, what evidence it needs, how the care experience should change, and how to explain the difference without outrunning the truth. That company is not merely first to sell the product. It is first to make the product make sense. This is why I think non-needle compounded semaglutide offers are strategically interesting even while the evidence and regulatory questions remain real. They reveal demand for a different experience. They show that delivery can create attention before a customer understands the molecule. And they give telehealth founders a preview of the positioning work that new approved products may require. The mistake would be confusing the entry point with the finished business. The next strong telehealth company may begin with a strip, tablet, lozenge, pouch, gummy or spray. It will endure because the format solves a real problem, the evidence holds up, and the rest of the care model earns the customer’s trust. --- *I’m Shea Hoffman. I lead business development for telehealth and peptides at Lucyd. We work with serious companies building acquisition systems in categories where the product, platform rules and customer trust all matter. If you are thinking about how a new formulation changes your audience or growth model, [let’s talk](/work-with-shea).* --- This essay is personal industry analysis, not medical or legal advice. Commercial calls to action lead to Lucyd.