"Inactive" patients and /or caregivers???/

[ScaredasHell]

Hello - If you go to the DOH's website, to check the # of total patients, and stats, etc., here: http://nmhealth.org/IDB/medicalcanna...08-29-2011.pdf
, there are over a THOUSAND "inactive" patients, and lots of "inactive" caregivers. These make up around 25% of all patients. Wondering, are these people who let their cards lapse? Or, just not participating in the program? Seems odd....

Scared

ScaredasHell Reviewed by ScaredasHell on 09-05-2011. "Inactive" patients and /or caregivers???/ Hello - If you go to the DOH's website, to check the # of total patients, and stats, etc., here: http://nmhealth.org/IDB/medicalcannabis/Medical%20Cannabis%20Numbers%20as%20of%208-29-2011.pdf , there are over a THOUSAND "inactive" patients, and lots of "inactive" caregivers. These make up around 25% of all patients. Wondering, are these people who let their cards lapse? Or, just not participating in the program? Seems odd.... Scared Rating: 5

[CannaHub]

Inactive means the patients have chosen not to renew their card, had their licensed revoked or they have died.
It looks like the majority of inactive patients have chosen not to renew due to hassle, cost or they see little benefit from having a card.
Thankfully, the situation here in New Mexico is getting much better every day and we still have new patients coming into the program faster then old ones are leaving. I would expect the rate of non-renewals to decline as more and more producers are getting up to speed and working the details out. Time will tell.

[ScaredasHell]

Actually, the table I looked at (DOH website) distinguishes between patients who have died (one column) and the "inactive" patients (another column). I'm thinking it might refer to those who have gotten cards, but never purchased from a dispensary, and do not have PPLs (so how are they getting their weed???). Food for thought,

Scared

[ScaredasHell]

If anyone cares, here's the link to the table: http://nmhealth.org/IDB/medicalcanna...08-29-2011.pdf .

Very troubling: 3981 "active" patients, 18 deceased, 1227 "inactive". So apparently almost 1 in 3 patients is "Inactive."

Scared

[CFO]

If anyone cares, here's the link to the table: http://nmhealth.org/IDB/medicalcanna...08-29-2011.pdf .

Very troubling: 3981 "active" patients, 18 deceased, 1227 "inactive". So apparently almost 1 in 3 patients is "Inactive."

Scared

No reason to be scared. First, the inactive of the total represents about 20%.

My theory is that some of the applications for renewal are sitting at DOH waiting to be recorded. A family member and another friend sent their apps in back in July and are still waiting to hear. Of course when you ask someone to check you are told they have to submit a status request in writing and that just goes in the pile waiting with all the rest!! If the lawsuit would go away then the few DOH staff members assigned to our program would be able to get back to doing their job. The patients are supposed to come first. Someone should file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit so the patients can get their cards.

Additionally, I think that because some patients can only afford the brick and purchasing from anyone other than the LNPPs is illegal then they don't need the card and are going back to the way it was before the MCP was established. Sad, but true. Some doctors refuse to sign the certification forms. So the patient then needs to find a new doctor who will do so and that costs more. So, if it costs more to do things legally, and there isn't the money, human nature is such that people will return to prior ways rather than pay more. Even though the medicinal quality is so much better than street.

[ScaredasHell]

I found it interesting that renewing my card and PPL took a little less than 3 weeks. I can't understand why it takes 3 months (allegedly) for some people. No rhyme or reason (or it's BS).

Scared

[cannarex]

]No reason to be scared. First, the inactive of the total represents about 20%.

My theory is that some of the applications for renewal are sitting at DOH waiting to be recorded. A family member and another friend sent their apps in back in July and are still waiting to hear. Of course when you ask someone to check you are told they have to submit a status request in writing and that just goes in the pile waiting with all the rest!! If the lawsuit would go away then the few DOH staff members assigned to our program would be able to get back to doing their job. The patients are supposed to come first. Someone should file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit so the patients can get their cards.

Additionally, I think that because some patients can only afford the brick and purchasing from anyone other than the LNPPs is illegal then they don't need the card and are going back to the way it was before the MCP was established. Sad, but true. Some doctors refuse to sign the certification forms. So the patient then needs to find a new doctor who will do so and that costs more. So, if it costs more to do things legally, and there isn't the money, human nature is such that people will return to prior ways rather than pay more. Even though the medicinal quality is so much better than street[/I].

Here are some facts; let us know if you disagree.

1. The total number of patient cards issued is 3,981 (call it 4,000 by now), of which 1,227 are "inactive." That means about 1/3 or more than 30% of the people who applied for and received cards have had them expire and have not renewed them. Your 20% comes from erroneously adding the "inactive" patients to the patients who got cards. That's wrong of course because that would mean there were "inactive" patients who were never "active," which can't be.

2. You say that "if the lawsuit went away then the few DOH staff members assigned to our program would be able to get back to doing their job." I guess you're talking about the applicants' lawsuit, filed by six applicants who were approved, qualified (some had site visits, some not) and then left to rot, with all their business plans, Boards, investments, employees, hopes, etc., on hold indefinitely until the DOH decides what to do or how to justify the 25 picked, seemingly at random but maybe for other reasons. What you claim is not only dead wrong, but insulting to those who obviously care about the program more than you. So we'd sure like to know where you got the idea that dismissing the lawsuit would help the program. It's totally false, an outright lie. The fact is the State hired an Albuquerque law firm, and from the start of the lawsuit they have handled all the litigation. Nothing has been done by the DOH in Santa Fe, or by any of the staff on the applicants' lawsuit, and if they are trying to excuse not doing their jobs, then they should be held accountable, which incidentally is all the lawsuit tries to do -- hold them accountable.

3. Who are you, that you pretend to know all about the medical cannabis program and can smugly tell us that when the patients buy from the producers it costs more but " the medicinal quality is so much better than street." How would you know that? What would make sense is that the price right now should be lower, and the quality relatively higher "on the street" than from the LNPPs, who have numerous restrictions, limitations, and expenses not shared by their illegal counterparts. So tell us what you know about relative price and quality, and how you "know" it. Or about law enforcement, and efforts to wipe out marijuana in New Mexico?

Some questions, if anyone knows: what happened at the DOH-Producers meeting last week in Santa Fe? How many LNPPs are going to be able to pay the annual fees? If some don't or can't pay, will they replaced with others on the list of qualified producers? How do street prices and quality compare with LNPPs' prices and quality?

[CFO]

I found it interesting that renewing my card and PPL took a little less than 3 weeks. I can't understand why it takes 3 months (allegedly) for some people. No rhyme or reason (or it's BS).

Scared

How long ago did you renew? My husband's renewal took just about a month in May. The other two were in July and are still waiting. The PPL check hasn't cleared on one from July. So that can probably be chalked up to the US postal service. Will have to resend everything.

[CFO]

Here are some facts; let us know if you disagree.

1. The total number of patient cards issued is 3,981 (call it 4,000 by now), of which 1,227 are "inactive." That means about 1/3 or more than 30% of the people who applied for and received cards have had them expire and have not renewed them. Your 20% comes from erroneously adding the "inactive" patients to the patients who got cards. That's wrong of course because that would mean there were "inactive" patients who were never "active," which can't be.

2. You say that "if the lawsuit went away then the few DOH staff members assigned to our program would be able to get back to doing their job." I guess you're talking about the applicants' lawsuit, filed by six applicants who were approved, qualified (some had site visits, some not) and then left to rot, with all their business plans, Boards, investments, employees, hopes, etc., on hold indefinitely until the DOH decides what to do or how to justify the 25 picked, seemingly at random but maybe for other reasons. What you claim is not only dead wrong, but insulting to those who obviously care about the program more than you. So we'd sure like to know where you got the idea that dismissing the lawsuit would help the program. It's totally false, an outright lie. The fact is the State hired an Albuquerque law firm, and from the start of the lawsuit they have handled all the litigation. Nothing has been done by the DOH in Santa Fe, or by any of the staff on the applicants' lawsuit, and if they are trying to excuse not doing their jobs, then they should be held accountable, which incidentally is all the lawsuit tries to do -- hold them accountable.

3. Who are you, that you pretend to know all about the medical cannabis program and can smugly tell us that when the patients buy from the producers it costs more but " the medicinal quality is so much better than street." How would you know that? What would make sense is that the price right now should be lower, and the quality relatively higher "on the street" than from the LNPPs, who have numerous restrictions, limitations, and expenses not shared by their illegal counterparts. So tell us what you know about relative price and quality, and how you "know" it. Or about law enforcement, and efforts to wipe out marijuana in New Mexico?

Some questions, if anyone knows: what happened at the DOH-Producers meeting last week in Santa Fe? How many LNPPs are going to be able to pay the annual fees? If some don't or can't pay, will they replaced with others on the list of qualified producers? How do street prices and quality compare with LNPPs' prices and quality?

1. Amazing how some people have trouble adding/reading. If you will look at the detail of the report on the DOH website you will find the following information:
3,981 ACTIVE + 3 APPLYING + 18 DECEASED + 1,227 INACTIVE + 6 WITHDRAWN = 5,238 TOTAL {applications/patients}
EACH number represents another batch or group. Just as it is shown on the report...the DOH is or has processed 5,238 applications. It does not say that of the 3,981 there are 1,227 inactive. Of the total 5,238 there are 1,227 inactive. 1,227 divided by 5,238 is actually 23.43%. I had used 20% as I was simply taking 1000 by 5000. Thus, the "erroneous" percentage would be the 30% or 1/3 (which of course is 33.3333%). Even the "new math" would support that 20% is less than 30%. So 1 in 5, not 1 in 3 patients is "inactive". If you want to use all of the numbers ... and you want to focus on the positive, 76% of all patients who have applied are ACTIVE as of 08/29/2011. Your numbers would indicate that there are only 2,754 active patients and you are going to tell us that we need more producers? what happens when all 25 producers have their perpetual harvests going and the shelves are full of inventory? Can you understand the meaning of diversion? Medicinal quality on the streets? Yeah, you bet. (Pull out your Webster's dictionary for the definition of inactive. I believe it will say something along the lines of "having once been active".

2. Are you one of the would-be producers or Mr. Livingston or one of the other attorneys for the plaintiffs? I haven't a clue which law firm the DOH hired nor do I care. (Although I thought I had read that it was a state's attorney. Maybe they have hired an outside firm to represent the best interests of the program.) One of the plaintiffs is a "venture capitalist" according to the newspaper. These are supposed to be nonprofit entities which means no ownership interest and the Board members serve without compensation. But that's another topic all together. I digress...

The lengthy delays in the program have only happened since the lawsuit. I believe I read that one of the motions off the lawsuit requested copies of all of the currently approved LNPPs applications, there are tens of thousands of pages that the DOH has been ordered to produce...again, copies of ALL of the applications. All of these pages must be redacted to protect the producers' private information.

But you are the one who is "dead wrong" and telling "outright lies". None of the parties in the lawsuit have been "approved". They may have had their site visits. They may have been told by someone that they were tentatively approved. But until the Secretary of Health signs the paperwork...they were not "approved". And if they went out and spent anything more than the $100 application fee and the $25 incorporation fee, then that is on them. That is a risk they assumed when they started. There is nothing in the LECA that states that just because someone submits a complete application they will automatically receive a license. I don't know how the determination was/is made. You tell me how it is that there is a producer in a county that has only one registered patient but yet there are counties with many patients that have none? Obviously that producer submitted his application in a timely manner and didn't wait until there were already several licensed producers.

According to the reports the majority of patients are in the Albuquerque/Santa Fe area. This is probably (you think?) why most of the producers are also in that area. There are 400 patients in DAC, but half of those have production licenses. So do you think DAC needs another producer? 200 patients that don't have a license. One producer allowed to have 150 plants. Patients can only have 6 ounces (exceptions may apply). Producer cannot sell outside of DAC due to the checkpoints. Hmmm. Think there might be a surplus there at some point? Maybe not now, but there will be if they know what they are doing.

Accountable? To whom? Within 17 months the program has grown from 5 producers to 25 and from 1,459 (total) patients to 5,238. I think the DOH is doing a hell of job with borrowed staff from the Harm Reduction Program.

Regarding your statement of "others who care about the program more than you do" ..... if you only knew the whole story. But I'm not telling the whole story to you or on this forum. What I will tell you is that I have not one, not two, not even three...but four family members in this program and two more who have qualifying conditions. I fight for and believe in this program for the benefit of the patients. We have been "in" it since the beginning. So, I don't know who the hell you are, but you have some nerve attacking a stranger simply because that is what I am to you on this forum...someone you don't think you know. But...you never know.....you may actually know me....IF I told you who I am.

3. Who are you? Pretend is not in my nature. I don't play games. About the only thing available on the street in my neighborhood is Mexican brick and medicine from the LNPPs. I'll pay the producers price over chemicals. Why would you think street would be better than organically grown? As a patient, I have had both. IMO the medicine from the LNPP was superior to the brick. Prior to the LNPPs, I had Cali medicinal and CO. The quality from my LNPP is comparable to both of these state's MMJ. And as the program ages, the prices will come down. However, that becomes another diversion issue. If the price is so low, then the patients MAY decide to purchase their full 6 ounces, keep what they need for themselves and resell the rest. That would be really good for the program...now wouldn't it? (sarcasm)

Regarding law enforcement: I have a friend who is a member of the joint drug task force in DAC and he said they aren't interested in the MMJ patients or the LNPPs. Only those people who are not following the rules have anything to worry about. But if you are referring to the feds, the Ogden memo clearly states that they are interested in the commercial producers ...with thousands of plants....who are making huge profits. NM producers are nonprofit entities and their plant numbers are minimal (although still prosecutable if the feds decided to do so).

What producers' meeting in Santa Fe? But seriously, if there was one...what happens at a meeting with the producers' and the DOH is not subject to the open meetings act and is none of your/our business. However, IMHO, I would be surprised if any of the current producers opt out of the program. The license renewal fees are steep ... especially for those producers who have not had $100,000 in revenues yet. But unlike the wannabe producers, those that have actually received their licenses have had tremendous expense already. I can't imagine they wouldn't find the $10,000 or $20,000 to renew. I don't think any of them are subject to the $30,000 fee yet.

Hope this clarifies my comments a little better for you. Perhaps you could learn some manners between now and your response?

[ScaredasHell]

CFO - I renewed in March, as my card and PPL were set to expire in late April. Was pleasantly surprised to get Both cards within 3 weeks.

Scared