Good News for MMAPR

Marijuana
Medical Marijuana: Mobile care program gets blessing of health dept. advisory committee
By Michael Roberts, Thu., Jan. 13 2011 @ 10:35AM


Vincent Palazzotto.
​On Tuesday, the health department's medical marijuana advisory committee, considered whether or not bless language requiring docs to have a permanent location in order to recommend MMJ -- a provision that would have doomed the Medical Marijuana Assistance Program of the Rockies, which sends a mobile unit to far-flung locations. But MMAPR's Vincent Palazzotto says the worst didn't happen.
"The language is gone," Palazzotto says, "and that's a really big win for us."

Palazzotto feels testimony by Dr. Margaret Gedde and several other physicians who spoke on behalf of MMAPR went a long way toward assuring the advisory committee that the organization's approach is medically sound.

"They were trying to limit situations where you're just cranking out patients who sign an evaluation form," he notes. "And they were originally concerned that we were doing telemedicine. But we actually have hands-on doctors with high standards, and we provide followup care by going out to the same communities whether it be monthly or even weekly in some areas."

Read on here:Medical Marijuana: Mobile care program gets blessing of health dept. advisory committee - Denver News - The Latest Word


I am happy to hear this! We'll see if it sticks.

One of our owners serves on MMAPR's board. The mobile doctor's office is one-of-a-kind and really helps rural areas that lack doctors sympathetic to MMJ.

Is it a sign of some reason making its way into these decisions?

it IS a crumb.. but if they are even starting to think about patients just a tiny, tiny bit, maybe someday the DOH will be about patients and their health instead of enforcement for the sake of making things difficult, just to be sure nobody has a cannabis buzz that shouldn't.

the biggest issue I see is the more-than-marijuana doctor issue. I've not had time to read the document myself yet so I'm only commenting on what I've heard. What I heard was there needs to be 'other' ongoing care besides mmj from that doctor.

Here's my issue.

1. I have a family doc I've had for years. The doc is aware of my use and even amazed at the results and drop in meds & weight and overall improvement in my blood/urine test "scores" but the practice limits my doc from signing mmj recs, so I go to an mmj doc.

2. I have a spine doctor I see regularly. I've got some serious issues, and have never been denied a direct request for prescription meds. I have no idea if they are okay with mmj or not, but they are surprised as well that I won't take narcotics I am given yet I've opted out of surgery. I've been warned by other patients that if I think I MIGHT need narcotics again someday not to tell them about the mmj use... ie - if I were to get arrested and perhaps be put on probation for my meds, and told I can't do MMJ or I am forced to look for a job that isn't okay with my medical use.. I will certainly need the Rx drugs!

I'm not an 20 year old kid with "back pain." There are a TON of people out there taking narcotics and getting steroid shots just to be able to function. We're talking x-ray and MRI verifiable conditions that insurance will pay for $1000 steroid shots for. MMJ has in fact save my insurance company a TON of money.

It's the favorite thing to pick on in the news, like anyone with back pain is making it up just to get high. I think that's the wavelength the DOH is operating on, that if you don't have AIDs or cancer, your just a pothead.

I guess despite the fact that I have at least two ongoing relationships with doctors they want me to basically SWITCH AWAY? seriously?!!

The DOH continues to show their hate for sick folks with this stuff. They think we're just blow hards who want to get high. Perhaps because we're such a socially, culturally, and politically diverse group we can almost never agree on anything, especially in the political process of medical cannabis.

or is that out of there too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

or is that out of there too?

---

It is my understanding that the advisory board removed language requiring that the doctor writing the recommendation be the patient's primary care physician.

They tried to get that language into HB1284 and SB109 also, but it just doesn't hold.

I completely agree that such a measure would infringe on the constitutional right to safe access provided by amendment 20.

What first comes to my mind are people who are uninsured and are suffering pain. A big part of MMAPR's mission is to help provide access to patients who otherwise couldn't afford to get the medicinal benefits of MMJ. Many people can't afford insurance and thus many people don't have a primary care physician whom they can visit regularly. Or, as you said, many have primary care physicians who wont write recommendations.

The government cannot dictate what doctor we visit for our healthcare, and if a doctor is sympathetic to MMJ they cannot prevent me from making a visit or force me to visit the doctor again because I visited him once for a recommendation.

Many of these proposed regulations are pipe dreams in the authoritarian minds of our politicians and officials that, when it comes down to it, would be too difficult to enforce, and are in fact ridiculous attempts at dictating the type of patient who is right for MMJ, but that is for doctors to decide. That is what amend. 20 set in place, and try as they might, they won't turn this train around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DenverRelief

It is my understanding that the advisory board removed language requiring that the doctor writing the recommendation be the patient's primary care physician.

---

This is my understanding as well. :thumbsup:

We need to remember however, 1284 got completely railroaded of any goodness. I suspect many of the same forces are in place now, but it does seem like they are considering some practical realities of the business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copobo

We need to remember however, 1284 got completely railroaded of any goodness. I suspect many of the same forces are in place now, but it does seem like they are considering some practical realities of the business.

---

Any goodness? And why is that your suspicion? I'd love to hear what you can tell us about the lobbyists that are there or the groups that have hired them.

my perspective is that of a patient caregiver. I don't see anything positive in 1284 for us or did I miss something?

A patient caregiver? Does that mean you take your time with your caregiving? :)

I understand what you mean, but patients, caregivers and MMCs do not all have exactly the same interests. I don't see how anyone could deny the benefits patients enjoy: added security, more strict background checks on MMC owners and employees, new health and safety standards and inspection regimes, forthright labeling laws and a huge reduction in the amount of time it takes CDPHE to process our paperwork. I also take comfort in knowing added oversight and inventory control from DoR is making it more difficult for criminals to use MMJ as a front. I think you're being a bit dramatic when you say there was no goodness in 1284.

there was no goodness in 1284 for patients and caregivers who are not using the MMC model. All these folks got was taken from. Many patients who were being helped for free are now forced to MMCs or the street.

I would have been good with labeling reqs and health and safety standards.