Via the CDPHE:
https://www.doradls.state.co.us/alison.php
"You can search by physicianâ??s name or license number. Check the third column titled â??License Status"
Printable View
Via the CDPHE:
https://www.doradls.state.co.us/alison.php
"You can search by physicianâ??s name or license number. Check the third column titled â??License Status"
good on ya mate. what will happen to us patients in lieu of current legislation, are we grandfathered in or do we need to comply with the new regs when we re-apply?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
meded, superior quality
thanks Releaf Center for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReleafCenter
yea, now you better just hope that your doc is STILL legal in 6 months or so when they get around to opening your application.
Unfortunately, there is no grandfathering. I'd check to make sure your physician is current via the link above and your notary has the correct commission date. The CDPHE is just verifying that you crossed your t's and dotted your i's at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by MEDEDCANNABIS
that's pretty special.
Dr. Dean is listed as active and has been on some sort of probation since 1988. It looks like she can still prescribe narcotics, though. So, why not a harmless herb?
https://www.doradls.state.co.us/alis...AxNzE4&t_o_p=0
and it looks like this was all about delivery procedures w/an infant, had NOTHING to do with drugs.
Think the key there is active - with conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by copobo
I just can't comprehend that they make a retroactive administrative decision nullifying applications of sick people (or any people !) and don't AUTOMATICALLY refund the money?
It's theft, plain and simple. It's one thing to rob the fund to pay for paving streets - but AT LEAST give the people what they paid for or their $$ back.
SICK BASTARDS.
Dr. Dean's pithy response to this really irks me. These physicians have earned hundreds of thousands of dollars off of patients, but she can't refund the fees for anyone who was denied, let alone have another physician in her office see them free of cost?Quote:
Originally Posted by copobo
A patient spends probably $100 to get their initial rec from her, $90 to the state, all of which is lost, then another $50 for the do-over and another $90? $330 to get legal? Ridiculous.
probably end up prorating per diem, so you the patient after taxes, processing fees, retraction fees, checking doctor status fees, a one time fee for issuance of license youve not yet recieved, if you currently dont have your card youll have a registry search fee, a police inquiry fee, state tax, a green energy tax, state hunting tax.................................you now owe the state of colorado $352,651.82 payable in full by the next business day of mailing date, excluding weekends and federal holidays. we do offer for your convenience debit and credit pay, otherwise cashiers check, cash or money order are viable forms of payment. please be prompt in payment, as law enforcement is standing by.Quote:
Originally Posted by copobo
meded "is this thing on.......hello?"
(cross-posted to all the other related threads in Colorado subforum)
Pot patients get state reprieve after questions about their docs
Pot patients get state reprieve after questions about their docs - The Denver Post
About 2,000 people who were recently notified that their state applications for medical marijuana were rejected because their doctors weren't eligible to refer them for the drug got a temporary reprieve Wednesday from the state.
Ann Hause, an attorney for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said the patients can continue to get marijuana until rules governing which doctors can prescribe marijuana are formalized.
Hause, who appeared Wednesday at a meeting of the Medical Marijuana Advisory Committee, said hearings on the issue likely won't begin until March.
"They are in limbo. I can easily think that people would be confused," said Mark Salley, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
The confusion stems from a law passed this year that prohibited doctors not in good standing from recommending patients for medical marijuana. But when the department interpreted that to include doctors with restricted as well as conditional licenses, many doctors objected.
"It improperly punishes a whole host of physicians," Kari Hershey, an attorney for the Colorado Medical Society, told the advisory committee Wednesday.
Hershey said doctors with conditional licenses are allowed to practice medicine under certain conditions.
Dr. Janet Dean said the state does not have a definition of what being a physician in good standing means. One of the doctors blackballed by the state was a neurosurgeon whose practice was limited solely because of a physical disability. There was no reason he couldn't prescribe marijuana, she said.
The state sent letters in late October to the 2,000 patients of 18 doctors initially disqualified to refer them for marijuana based on the department's original interpretation of the new law.
The patients were already legally using marijuana because of a provision that allows them to use their doctor-approved "application" to buy marijuana 35 days after it is signed. The rule was intended to prevent patients from suffering because of a months-long backlog.
The state now has 114,000 medical-marijuana patients, who must renew annually.
The legislature passed the law limiting which doctors can prescribe marijuana after complaints that some doctors were recommending marijuana to virtually any patient who wished to have it, Salley said.
(cross-posted to all the other related threads in Colorado subforum)