Card Mills (No Records Needed; Pre-Signed Certs, Often No Dr On Site)

[CherryCrush]

Just a quick suggestion for those without current medical records and how we can help as a community.

 

There are many sources in the state where you can recieve either a free medical evaluation, a sliding scale physician clinic appointment based on income(raanging from $10-$40 a vist) and programs like MCAC(Medical Care Access Coalition).

 

Maybe instead of bickering over how people don't have medical records, we should be providing the information and access to medical care these patients need. There is help out there, it is just really hard to find sometimes if you dont know it exists. And obviously, these people need medical care of some sort and have been unable to find it.

 

How about as a community, we make up lists by county of where either free or sliding scale clinics exist.

 

Now that is a real solution to a problem.

[+Silverblue]

This is wonderful to see solutions, ideas I hadn't thought of or knew about.

 

Dr. Bob, well said again. Thanks for looking out for this community.

 

CherryCrush, that is an EXCELLENT idea about listing where people can go for low-cost help. That list should be in a different thread. I'll set it up very soon. This is very important to me. The more pt's wwe can help, the better it is for everyone.

 

Keep those solutions coming!

 

Sb

[jaman]

When I say something I can prove it. If I say something about pre-signed certs or no doctor clinics, you better believe I can back it up because I am not a fool that goes off sputtering crap that will land me in court with a judgement. So long as you can back what you say you are safe. As for a list of good clinics, I'll start it off with Dr. Bob Kenewell (Dr. Bix), Dr. Dave Croker, Dr. Mitch Cohn and THCF just off the top of my head.

 

It is just as important to do the bad ones too, and WHY they are bad. Most patients do not know the difference and only look at price.

 

Dr. Bob

Did my recert today with Dr Bob and Ken. could have gone back to mill they said $70 and they will send papers to doc to sign NO THANKS.Called Dr Bob and talked to ken he came to see me. Had a long talk with Ken and he faxed my records to Dr Bob. Than had interview with Dr Bob on skype. these men are interested in you and what your medical needs are. I thank Ken and Dr Bob for doing it right. Peace

[Dr. Bob]

There are clearly things to look out for, they are just common sense issues.

 

1. If a clinic doesn't require records, how on Earth are they going to establish a relationship with you or get an understanding of your treatment to date? Remember, just because you LOOK like you have a problem, is that enough to protect you if someone is questioning your card in court? If a doctor doesn't bother with medical records before making a decision, is that as professional and strong on the witness stand as one that DID review your chart and treatment history? I think not.

 

2. Offering someone a $70 or even free certification in exchange for signing a caregiver contract with them is not unheard of or even necessarily wrong. But is there something fishy about the exchange? Hearing the price is one thing, but when you go in are you pressured to do something that makes you uncomfortable, or strikes you as not right? Example, you get a $70 cert at a dispensary in exchange for signing a contract to be one of their caregivers patients. Are their prices reasonable, do you know the quality of meds you are getting? Are you pressured to buy meds right then because, with a signed certification, you have an 'affirmative defense'? You may indeed have an AD, but you can still be arrested and have to defend it in court. Will the cert and the way it was done back it up? Were records required? Did you actually see a doctor?

 

3. Look around the room, is it more like the DMV than a doctors office? Is privacy protected, or is it all one big happy family? The best ones I hear about are the ones done at festivals from a table somewhere. I can hear it now-- Prosecutor, 'so Mr. Jones, you got your card with no records while attending a kegger in the woods, right????? Were you feeling pain at the time?'

 

Just think folks, don't do something stupid.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

'Dr. Bob' wrote:

 

1. If a clinic doesn't require records, how on Earth are they going to establish a relationship with you or get an understanding of your treatment to date?

 

 

WHAT IF YOU HAVE NOT HAD ANY TREATMENT TO DATE? WHAT IF YOUR PRIOR TREATMENT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE SITUATION?

 

 

Remember, just because you LOOK like you have a problem, is that enough to protect you if someone is questioning your card in court?

 

NOW HERE IS THE CRUX OF GROSS CONCEPTUAL ERROR THAT IS RUNNING RAMPANT AMONG SOME ON THIS FORUM: IT IS NOT INCUMBENT UPON THE PATIENT TO ASSESS THE VIABILITY OF THE MMJ CARD PROCESS. AND, FURTHER, ONCE THE CARD IS GIVEN BY THE STATE, THE PATIENT IS PROTECTED UNLESS THERE IS FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE PATIENT. DON'T TRY TO PUT THE BURDEN OF THE STATE ON THE BACK OF THE PATIENT. IT IS THE BURDEN OF THE STATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROCESS OF GETTING THAT CARD WAS IN LINE WITH THE LAW. IF THERE IS A LEGAL ISSUE LATER ON, THE PATIENT IS PROTECTED UNLESS HE COMMITTED FRAUD IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING THE CARD.

 

NO WAY THAT THE PATIENT GETS IN TROUBLE IF THE DOC LOOKS AT HIM, LISTENS TO HIM, AND SIGNS ON THE DOTTED LINE, AND THEN THE STATE ISSUES THE CARD. THE PATIENT IS PROTECTED AFTER THAT. IF THERE ARE ANY REPERCUSSIONS TO FALL ON SOMEONE LATER, THEY FALL ON THE STATE OR THE DOCTOR.

 

 

If a doctor doesn't bother with medical records before making a decision, is that as professional and strong on the witness stand as one that DID review your chart and treatment history? I think not.

 

 

AGAIN, YOU ARE SUFFERING UNDER A GROSS CONCEPTUAL ERROR. AS LONG THE PATIENT DOES NOT COMMIT FRAUD IN THE PROCESS OF SUBMITTING THE CARD, THE PATIENT IS PROTECTED AND IS NOT GOING TO SUFFER ANY REPERCUSSIONS LATER ON.

 

NOW, I CAN SEE A CARD BEING REVOKED IF THE DOCTOR WAS NOT LICENSED BY STATE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE, ANY DRUG PRESCRIPTIONS WRITTEN BY THAT DOCTOR WOULD BE INVALID. BUT TO SUPPOSE THAT A PATIENT WHO GOT A PRESCRIPTION FOR VICODIN FROM A FAKE DOCTOR WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ARREST FOR ILLEGAL USE OF VICODIN, WELL, THAT IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL AND WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

 

SAME SITUATION HERE. THE PATIENT IS PROTECTED IF HE DID NOT COMMIT FRAUD.

 

QUALIFIER: THE ABOVE IS NOT INTENDED AS--AND IS NOT--LEGAL ADVICE. JUST MY OPINION. I AM NOT A LICENSED LAWYER IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE, GO TO SOMEONE WHO IS A LAWYER LICENSED IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.

 

You can do what you want. Personally I think this is foolish reasoning. The first step to prosecuting a patient is to invalidate their card or their defense under the MMMA. If you have been paying attention, LEO is using every excuse from having the front door to house unlocked to not having paperwork in your possession as a reason to say you were not fully in compliance with the MMMA, therefore not entitled to the defense offer by the MMMA.

 

Right now, the big thrust is on the 'bona fide' doctor patient relationship. Your approach is absurd and will get people in legal trouble. Reasonable adults take responsibility for their own safety. I stand behind my reasoning, whoever reads this can make up their own minds. You are an adult and can decide what level of risk you are willing to take, but don't advocate others wash their hands of any responsibility for their own safety.

 

Ignoring the reality of the courts, LEO and the political climate (remember those bills, the AG's opinion, the O'Connell decisions???) is the conceptual error here, not a call for defensible certifications.

 

 

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, all CAPS is considered a bit pushy in online discussions, akin to screaming.

[+Silverblue]

gunnyhighway, There's no need to shout. All caps is considered shouting. Emphasizing a few words in caps is ok. I'm not being bossy, I'm asking nicely. It's very difficult to read a paragraph in all caps. I ask in peace, if you do it again I will not respond and I hope no one else will, either. You made your point, we needn't go around in circles repeating ourselves. Please understand, most of us, and the doc are trying to help us stay safe. Sadly the law forces us to do things the way they shouldn't need to be done. Do you think he likes doing all that extra paperwork? I doubt it, but he does it anyway. We don't like having to jump through all these hoops. You choose to do things your way. good luck with that. Hey, I'm a rebel, too, I AGREE with you, have you taken the time to notice? Can't you see we understand your feelings? Can't you see why we're saying these things? Look, until we can make them change things, we have to do it their way. I cringe at that very thought, CRINGE! It hurts my pride, dignity and self worth to feel I have to be at their mercy, when they have NO mercy! Those people care nothing about our wellbeing or safety, as we have all seen. I'm not arguing with you; NONE of us are! Do as you wish.

 

Your points can be made without insults or shouting. If someone insults you and yells at you, do you listen? I seriously doubt it, even if they're message is well-meaning. Please, there's no need to yell at us, especially people who REALLY DO CARE. I'm sorry you don't seem to be able to realize that. Look, I hate authority as much as you do, they've ruined my life, robbed me of my dignity, self worth, pride, and liberty. They're the last people I want to side with. I'm not siding with them, but life is a compromise. They made it that way, though it shouldn't have to be. I AGREE!

 

I HATE them for what they did to me and countless others. People say, "don't act like a victim," I say, "stop treating me like one." We don't have to play their game all the time, it's a crappy game anyway, the odds are stacked against us, they cheat, lie and steal to gain an unfair advantage! They're wrong and they know it, and someday they'll get what they deserve, because that's what they put out. THEY created these problems. I sense they're hurt you very badly, too. We can't let them get to us. I know it's easier said than done, but I'm a fighter and a survivor. We have to be very careful how we fight and what battles we choose. Even if the odds are against us, we still have to try, right?

 

Every game has rules, whether we like them or not. In these games, they keep changing the rules and imposing unwritten ones we're expected to know, as well as all the other rules, fair or unfair, like it or not. Rules can be changed, but it's a long, hard process.s Of course they set it up that way, too. It's hard keeping up with it. Life sucks, it's NOT OUR FAULT. We SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PROVE we are qualified. We're not fighting you, we're trying to work together- all of us, for the WHOLE Community, including YOU.

 

Believe it or not, we care. I've said all I need to say about this.

Peace

 

Sb

[Dr. Bob]

Here, let me clarify why this is very poor advice.

 

 

WHAT IF YOU HAVE NOT HAD ANY TREATMENT TO DATE? WHAT IF YOUR PRIOR TREATMENT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE SITUATION?

 

Then how will you answer the question- 'so if it is soooo severe you needed access to a schedule 1 narcotic, why didn't you seek treatment for it? Sounds like an excuse to get high, ladies and gentlemen of the jury....'.

 

If you want to get the discounted $25 rate on your registration, they want a copy of your award letter or medicaid card to prove you are entitled to the reduce fee. It is incredibly naive to think they won't ask for the same kind of documentation to prove your condition as well, especially when you are looking at a charge.

 

 

Remember, just because you LOOK like you have a problem, is that enough to protect you if someone is questioning your card in court?

 

NOW HERE IS THE CRUX OF GROSS CONCEPTUAL ERROR THAT IS RUNNING RAMPANT AMONG SOME ON THIS FORUM: IT IS NOT INCUMBENT UPON THE PATIENT TO ASSESS THE VIABILITY OF THE MMJ CARD PROCESS. AND, FURTHER, ONCE THE CARD IS GIVEN BY THE STATE, THE PATIENT IS PROTECTED UNLESS THERE IS FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE PATIENT. DON'T TRY TO PUT THE BURDEN OF THE STATE ON THE BACK OF THE PATIENT. IT IS THE BURDEN OF THE STATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROCESS OF GETTING THAT CARD WAS IN LINE WITH THE LAW. IF THERE IS A LEGAL ISSUE LATER ON, THE PATIENT IS PROTECTED UNLESS HE COMMITTED FRAUD IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING THE CARD.

You are exactly right, and lack of a bona fide doctor patient relationship, in the eyes of the court, not you, makes meeting that burden incredibly easy. Pay attention to the headlines and current rulings/bills.

 

NO WAY THAT THE PATIENT GETS IN TROUBLE IF THE DOC LOOKS AT HIM, LISTENS TO HIM, AND SIGNS ON THE DOTTED LINE, AND THEN THE STATE ISSUES THE CARD. THE PATIENT IS PROTECTED AFTER THAT. IF THERE ARE ANY REPERCUSSIONS TO FALL ON SOMEONE LATER, THEY FALL ON THE STATE OR THE DOCTOR.

 

 

If a doctor doesn't bother with medical records before making a decision, is that as professional and strong on the witness stand as one that DID review your chart and treatment history? I think not.

 

 

AGAIN, YOU ARE SUFFERING UNDER A GROSS CONCEPTUAL ERROR. AS LONG THE PATIENT DOES NOT COMMIT FRAUD IN THE PROCESS OF SUBMITTING THE CARD, THE PATIENT IS PROTECTED AND IS NOT GOING TO SUFFER ANY REPERCUSSIONS LATER ON.

 

NOW, I CAN SEE A CARD BEING REVOKED IF THE DOCTOR WAS NOT LICENSED BY STATE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE, ANY DRUG PRESCRIPTIONS WRITTEN BY THAT DOCTOR WOULD BE INVALID. BUT TO SUPPOSE THAT A PATIENT WHO GOT A PRESCRIPTION FOR VICODIN FROM A FAKE DOCTOR WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ARREST FOR ILLEGAL USE OF VICODIN, WELL, THAT IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL AND WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

 

Something like that includes lack of a bona fide doctor patient relationship. Leading questions "You're suffering from chronic pain aren't you- say yes and I'll give you a card".

 

SAME SITUATION HERE. THE PATIENT IS PROTECTED IF HE DID NOT COMMIT FRAUD.

 

QUALIFIER: THE ABOVE IS NOT INTENDED AS--AND IS NOT--LEGAL ADVICE. JUST MY OPINION. I AM NOT A LICENSED LAWYER IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE, GO TO SOMEONE WHO IS A LAWYER LICENSED IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.

[+Silverblue]

Hi Doc thanks for trying. I think this person is unreachable; sad and sorry to say. We gave him the info, it's up to him how he uses it. Thanks for taking the time and energy. This discussion is so important; I won't have it derailed. If he continues, I'll handle it. Nothing personal against him.

All too often, those who really care get pushed away due to stubborn pride, fear, and anger. He has a right to be angry, he's just misdirecting it. I hope he can find a way to work through his pain and anger. It's not as easy as it may seem to do so. I know this all too well, but we can't help them all, and we can't help those who refuse to accept it. Needing help is a big blow to the ego, it's hard to get past it. If it's not the ego, it's fear of getting hurt.

 

It seems we're all just dancing around in circles with him and getting our toes stepped on. He'll do things his way and if he gets burned, he'll either learn from it, or not learn. It's his right to make that decision, I just hate to see that reflect back to this community; we're already hurting form bad press and the few who refuse to abide by the laws. I understand and acknowledge his feelings, try to show some respect, nothing works, it's time to leave it alone. When he's ready, someone will be there to offer assistance and friendship. It may not be me or any of us. We did our best.

 

It may be time to just let it be. He wants to be left alone- request acknowledged.

 

Sincerely, Sb

[Dr. Bob]

Hi Doc thanks for trying. I think this person is unreachable; sad and sorry to say. We gave him the info, it's up to him how he uses it. Thanks for taking the time and energy. This discussion is so important; I won't have it derailed. If he continues, I'll handle it. Nothing personal against him.

All too often, those who really care get pushed away due to stubborn pride, fear, and anger. He has a right to be angry, he's just misdirecting it. I hope he can find a way to work through his pain and anger. It's not as easy as it may seem to do so. I know this all too well, but we can't help them all, and we can't help those who refuse to accept it. Needing help is a big blow to the ego, it's hard to get past it. If it's not the ego, it's fear of getting hurt.

 

It seems we're all just dancing around in circles with him and getting our toes stepped on. He'll do things his way and if he gets burned, he'll either learn from it, or not learn. It's his right to make that decision, I just hate to see that reflect back to this community; we're already hurting form bad press and the few who refuse to abide by the laws. I understand and acknowledge his feelings, try to show some respect, nothing works, it's time to leave it alone. When he's ready, someone will be there to offer assistance and friendship. It may not be me or any of us. We did our best.

 

It may be time to just let it be. He wants to be left alone- request acknowledged.

 

Sincerely, Sb

 

Agreed, that is why I did the second post, to clarify exactly why his reasoning was incorrect. The thread is not sidetracked, but it was a good learning point for all involved.

 

If at a later time he wants assistance, I'll give it to him. Until then I'll leave him to his cabin and computer.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Name the court case, the law, the regulation, the precedent, the newspaper story, or whatever that forms the basis for your statement.

 

Gunny, read through the forums and you will see many examples, I really don't have the time to rehash everything. I believe I answered your question.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

If you understand what determines a chronic condition, the process of qualifying as having one becomes clearer.

 

Here's is one example, chronic pain;

 

Chronic pain has several different meanings in medicine. Traditionally, the distinction between acute and chronic pain has relied upon an arbitrary interval of time from onset; the two most commonly used markers being 3 months and 6 months since the initiation of pain,[1] though some theorists and researchers have placed the transition from acute to chronic pain at 12 months.[2] Others apply acute to pain that lasts less than 30 days, chronic to pain of more than six months duration, and subacute to pain that lasts from one to six months.[3] A popular alternative definition of chronic pain, involving no arbitrarily fixed durations is "pain that extends beyond the expected period of healing."

 

The definition I and many doctors use for severe and chronic is pain lasting more than 3 months (chronic) that is affecting your life to the point you have to seek treatment for it (severe). Simple and very defensible.

 

Dr. Bob

[hcubbyhill]

Dr Bob I have a question for you that has been pondering my mind. First off Why the $100-$200 charge to do a certification. A normal office visit with my specialist at the U of M Hospital cost me $49.00 for my visit. I have seen her face to face for years. She being my primary Doctor we have a well established Patient/DR relationship. she does legitimize exams and test on me and keep all of it as a part of my treatments and there failures. She signs my form with out hesitation because my condition is one of the MAIN SPELLED OUT ONES. There is no way to say I should not be using it.

 

My first question is Why do you charge so much to read a few documents and talk to a patient and sign a form. How often do you order back up testing to make sure the clients that see you really need the treatment they are looking for. You basically have no relationship with them until it is time to get a card or renew one. Your teleconferencing thing is in my eyes bogus also. You are not physically examining your patients but not even being in the same room with them. I must be very hard for you to test basic functions on a computer screen.

 

can you explain your prices and why they are 75% higher then a specialists office visit from U of M?

[Wild Bill]

There have always been and always will be quack doctors out to make a buck. If one of us wanted a prescription for Dilaudid then I'm sure that we could find a doctor to write a prescription without an exam or records. I've been offered Vicodin for minor pain several times in emergency rooms.

 

Unless the doctor is writing so many that it draws the attention of the DEA they can go on until they retire.

 

When the quack doctors are caught there is never any mention of prosecuting the patients because the doctor gave them a prescription for narcotics.

 

Why then are we held to be responsible because our doctor did a less than stellar job?

 

If the doctors are doing things illegally or unethically then the problem lies with the doctor, not the patient and certainly not the law.

 

When did you ever hear or see, "We need to make sure there is a bona fide doctor/patient relationship before a prescription for Oxycontin can be written?"

 

The enemies of the law will use any excuse, real or imagined, to revoke it. They will keep nit-picking, feigning ignorance and twisting words until they win or are so soundly defeated that they don't have the will to go on.

[Dr. Bob]

Dr Bob I have a question for you that has been pondering my mind. First off Why the $100-$200 charge to do a certification. A normal office visit with my specialist at the U of M Hospital cost me $49.00 for my visit. I have seen her face to face for years. She being my primary Doctor we have a well established Patient/DR relationship. she does legitimize exams and test on me and keep all of it as a part of my treatments and there failures. She signs my form with out hesitation because my condition is one of the MAIN SPELLED OUT ONES. There is no way to say I should not be using it.

 

My first question is Why do you charge so much to read a few documents and talk to a patient and sign a form. How often do you order back up testing to make sure the clients that see you really need the treatment they are looking for. You basically have no relationship with them until it is time to get a card or renew one. Your teleconferencing thing is in my eyes bogus also. You are not physically examining your patients but not even being in the same room with them. I must be very hard for you to test basic functions on a computer screen.

 

can you explain your prices and why they are 75% higher then a specialists office visit from U of M?

 

Actually my charges are a flat rate of $150 for all. I highly doubt you are being charged $49 per visit from the U of M. That may well be your co-pay, but much of the actual charge is covered by insurance. That is not the case in certifications as insurance companies do not pay for what they consider 'routine' exams. Examples of such exams are insurance physicals, sports physicals, airman's exams, etc. Until recently (ie when they were forced to) they didn't pay for routine paps and mammograms.

 

While your question infers I charge alot to 'read a couple of papers' I'm a physician and my time and evaluation is worth something. It cost me years of my life and literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition and delayed my entry into full time employment until well after age 30. I have expertise and under the law, you must get the certification of a physician to be allowed to use MMJ under the Act. I am a specialist in internal medicine, just like many of the folks at the U of M as well.

 

But are you really paying for my signature? Or are you paying for the fact that I develop a chart on you that will defend you in court? By reviewing those papers, I confirm not only that you have an approved condition, but that I CAN PROVE IT if you have a problem. I am also taking on risk for signing your certification, risk 14 of 15 Michigan doctors are not willing to take (does that have value?). Included in your certification cost of $150 is the year of free follow up I offer, the fact that I did the work to make sure I could defend you, and access to my expertise in the field.

 

The cost of an ER visit, without insurance, is hundreds of dollars. An initial visit at a primary care office for a cold is going to run you about $135 without insurance, or more. An ounce of medication is at least $200-300. For what I offer, $150 is a pretty reasonable price. Compare that to a no-record/no physician clinic charging $200 without the defensible chart (affidavits are a joke and exist only to protect the doctor/clinic, not the patient) and I am a bargain. A signature is cheap, but without the chart to back it up it is worthless.

 

Hope that answers your question.

 

Dr. Bob

 

As for your comments on telemedicine, you may want to do a google search for U of M telemedicine, see what they have to say about it.

[Dr. Bob]

There have always been and always will be quack doctors out to make a buck. If one of us wanted a prescription for Dilaudid then I'm sure that we could find a doctor to write a prescription without an exam or records. I've been offered Vicodin for minor pain several times in emergency rooms.

 

Unless the doctor is writing so many that it draws the attention of the DEA they can go on until they retire.

 

When the quack doctors are caught there is never any mention of prosecuting the patients because the doctor gave them a prescription for narcotics.

 

Why then are we held to be responsible because our doctor did a less than stellar job?

 

If the doctors are doing things illegally or unethically then the problem lies with the doctor, not the patient and certainly not the law.

 

When did you ever hear or see, "We need to make sure there is a bona fide doctor/patient relationship before a prescription for Oxycontin can be written?"

 

The enemies of the law will use any excuse, real or imagined, to revoke it. They will keep nit-picking, feigning ignorance and twisting words until they win or are so soundly defeated that they don't have the will to go on.

 

WB, I've read many of your posts in here and I think you ask good questions.

 

The basis of the certification visit is the bona fide doctor patient relationship, which other than with telemedicine, is not a defined term legally in this state. That leaves certifications open to interpretation. The O'Connell concurring opinion did outline what were viewed as problems with the doctor patient relationship in the Redden case. Right or wrong, it gives a guideline for what the courts are viewing as a bona fide relationship. We can argue the point or use it as guidance to keep our patients out of trouble- which is the approach I use rather than just trying to skate through on a bare minimum and a signature. I view it as a way to protect patients. To do otherwise make the job of prosecuting patients easier. If they can deny the protections of the act to a grandma that left her door open (thus it wasn't 'secured' and violated the Act) imagine what a field day they could have with a patient from a clinic that required no records, had no doctor interaction with the patient at the time of the visit, in a hotel room. Might as well have sent your form and a check to some doc, and a request for a script for vicodin for good measure. You pick the level of risk you are willing to accept, others can pick theirs, and always legitimate certifications centers such as mine are ready to be of assistance.

 

Why should patients be penalized for their choices of sub standard certification clinics? Because you know better by now if you have been paying attention. Common sense dictates you should have proof that you qualify for the use of a schedule 1 narcotic. At least that is how the prosecutor will present it to a jury (made up of people that go to doctors and have certain expectations of what a bona fide relationship is). Furthermore, if you were given a presigned certification at a hotel room in Marquette, signed by an absent doctor from Detroit, you should know something isn't right. That doctor that handed out presigned certification committed a crime, which put fraud into the mix. The bottom line is that your card is at risk and with it your protections under the Act.

 

Finally, many in here seem to be under the false impression that if we could cite an example of ANOTHER doctor doing a worse job (the dilaudid factories you mention) we are ok for only doing a mildly bad job. This is not correct or safe reasoning. Marijuana remains a schedule 1 narcotic and is illegal under both federal and state law. The feds are tolerating for the most part, and the state have put certain exceptions into law, the use of medical marijuana. We need not to be 'loosy goosy' about it, we need to keep our game tight, our documentation perfect, and our counts right. We need NOT make it easy for them to question us or our use of marijuana as medicine. We need to lead with our best, not the worse the certification profession can offer.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Here's the deal;

The 'opposition' glommed onto the words 'bona fide' in the doctor protection part of the law. In the Schuette press conference a doctor Nelson(?) said ONLY MEDICAL CANNABIS requires a 'bona fide' doctor patient relationship. That is where THEY(who?) think that they can make a distinction between medical cannabis and the MORE DANGEROUS prescription drugs. This actually makes anyone who says it look stupid/ignorant because a bona fide doctor patient relationship is VERY important for ANY medical treatment. To say ONLY medical marijuana requires a bona fide doctor patient relationship makes one look ignorant. When a doctor says it, it makes him look like he has been mal practicing. Let's hope they keep saying it like Dr. Nelson(?) did so we can point out how uneducated they are about a bona fide doctor patient relationship and how that relates TO ALL medical treatments.

 

Here's where they found it 'word find puzzle' style. Then they take it totally out of context which only makes them look ignorant;

 

 

(f) A physician shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by the Michigan board of medicine, the Michigan board of osteopathic medicine and surgery, or any other business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for providing written certifications, in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship and after the physician has completed a full assessment of the qualifying patient's medical history, or for otherwise stating that, in the physician's professional opinion, a patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the serious or debilitating medical condition, provided that nothing shall prevent a professional licensing board from sanctioning a physician for failing to properly evaluate a patient's medical condition or otherwise violating the standard of care for evaluating medical conditions.

 

My point has always been we shouldn't whine about the unfairness of requiring a bona fide relationship, we should simply follow good medical practice and embrace it. They said they want it, give me ONE reason why we shouldn't give them one?

 

Dr. Bob

[Wild Bill]

My point has always been we shouldn't whine about the unfairness of requiring a bona fide relationship, we should simply follow good medical practice and embrace it.

 

I think the only ones who are whining are the people that know they will be unable to get certified by a reputable doctor.

 

Maybe you've run across them, "Hey! I got my card, now I can get high without getting busted! I just told the Doc at the motel that I had bad headaches".

 

The people who have real medical problems I'm sure have had enough experience with doctors to know a good one from a bad one.

 

I myself had no insurance for several years and had not gone to a doctor. The doctor who had originally treated me had closed and I could not obtain the records. This made it more difficult, but not impossible to obtain legitimate certification.

 

It was easy enough to go to a low cost walk in clinic to confirm my problem and that coupled with another exam by the certifying doctor satisfied the legal requirements.

 

It probably would have been easier and cheaper to go to a card mill or to go back to the pills but why play games with my health.

 

The bottom line is, who do you want to trust your health to, a legitimate physician or a quack in a motel room?

[Dr. Bob]

I think the only ones who are whining are the people that know they will be unable to get certified by a reputable doctor.

 

Maybe you've run across them, "Hey! I got my card, now I can get high without getting busted! I just told the Doc at the motel that I had bad headaches".

 

The people who have real medical problems I'm sure have had enough experience with doctors to know a good one from a bad one.

 

I myself had no insurance for several years and had not gone to a doctor. The doctor who had originally treated me had closed and I could not obtain the records. This made it more difficult, but not impossible to obtain legitimate certification.

 

It was easy enough to go to a low cost walk in clinic to confirm my problem and that coupled with another exam by the certifying doctor satisfied the legal requirements.

 

It probably would have been easier and cheaper to go to a card mill or to go back to the pills but why play games with my health.

 

The bottom line is, who do you want to trust your health to, a legitimate physician or a quack in a motel room?

 

Well said. The folks that go to no doctor affidavit clinics are not only risking their safety, they are risking the program for the rest of us.

 

Dr. Bob

[+Silverblue]

gunnhighway WE KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS; WE'RE NOT DISPUTING THAT WITH YOU what we're saying is THE STUPID LEGISLATORS ARE FORCING US TO BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY AS IF WE WERE ALL POTENTIAL CRIMINALS AND THEY'RE UNJUSTLY ARRESTING AND PROSECUTING PEOPLE WHO THE LAW IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING. For example, read Trix's story- he ended up paying thousands of dollars to defend himself against WRONGFUL ARREST AND SEIZURE OF PROPERTY. How about Petoskystoned? Look what he and his family and fiance have been put through, THEY were supposed to be protected, too! His fiance isn't even a pt or cg but she got BEATEN BY AN OFFICER AND HAD TO GO TO THE ER!!! How about bob&torey, or Barb Agro? They killed Barb's husband, traumatized him in an UNJUST RAID, he died shortly after. How about Jeff from Bad Axe? He lost his wife the same way. ALL WERE LEGAL AT THE TIME!!

 

UNFORTUNATELY, JUST BECAUSE A LAW SAYS IT PROTECTS US, DOESN'T MEAN THE LEO AND ALL WILL HONOR IT. Look on the forums, I don't have the time either to search for all the stuff, you're as capable as anyone else is of doing a search. I'm writing in all caps because I AM VERY ANGRY that you are being so stubborn and confrontational and I will not tolerate it anymore!

 

Please stop being so confrontational, I'm at my wit's end with you, been very patient, we're all trying to explain WHY but you're apparently NOT LISTENING NOW I'm angry and tired of repeating myself.

 

Sb

[peanutbutter]

I oppose any and all legislation that would require our law be amended. There is a thing in this country called the 14th Amendment. It prohibits states from enacting laws such as the one being discussed. It speaks poorly of an attorney general that would support such a measure. My right to see a doctor of my choice and if that doctor accepts me as a patient, establish a relationship, should not be governed by the state. Finally any law that makes a patient responsible for what a doctor does is immoral. As Dr. Bob stated, he had many years of training to earn his degree and his ability to practice his speciality. Why would a patient be held accountable if he failed to establish a proper doctor/patient relationship. Finally, everything the state needs to enforce even a higher standard of care, is already in law. Doctors can be arrested for distributing a schedule I, if they do not provide a normal standard of care as defined by the DEA. They can be sanctioned by the state and have their license to practice medicine revoked. If a patient/caregiver knowingly commits fraud, The department, can already report it. This legislation is just an attempt to crack our law open and gut it. The MMMA opposes any and all of this legislation from this current group of tyrants. Thanks, Bb

 

Agree .. no changes in the law.

 

The changes that are being proposed in Lansing on this topic, involve arresting doctors for writing letters of recommendation.

 

If that goes into effect, how many doctors will write letters in Michigan? I figure about 10% of those that currently do.

 

None of the doctors will know where the line is. None of courts will know where the line is. Until two or three years are spent in court to figure it out.

 

Meanwhile patients will suffer because of the proposed law. Patients without protection and doctors being jailed on felony charges .. Great solution.

 

Do we really want to beg our government to pass more laws against us? I'm sure they will be happy to do so.

[Dr. Bob]

Agree .. no changes in the law.

 

The changes that are being proposed in Lansing on this topic, involve arresting doctors for writing letters of recommendation.

 

If that goes into effect, how many doctors will write letters in Michigan? I figure about 10% of those that currently do.

 

None of the doctors will know where the line is. None of courts will know where the line is. Until two or three years are spent in court to figure it out.

 

Meanwhile patients will suffer because of the proposed law. Patients without protection and doctors being jailed on felony charges .. Great solution.

 

Do we really want to beg our government to pass more laws against us? I'm sure they will be happy to do so.

 

The point of the thread is to stop giving them ammunition and counter their objections by tightening our game in certifications. We need to stop supporting the mills that are giving them justification in the eyes of the public. They may have their own agenda, but need the support of the public to pass it. Sticking our heads in the sand and allowing these mills to operate does not help us.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

The point of the thread is to stop giving them ammunition and counter their objections by tightening our game in certifications. We need to stop supporting the mills that are giving them justification in the eyes of the public. They may have their own agenda, but need the support of the public to pass it. Sticking our heads in the sand and allowing these mills to operate does not help us.

 

Dr. Bob

 

And spending several threads and months of posting works to convince everyone that there is a major problem.

 

It sounds like there are thousands of mills running in Michigan. So far, I think I've seen things about two or 3.

 

I think it is a disservice to the community to scream that medical marijuana in Michigan is based entirely on fraud. That's not a direct quote. But rather the impression generated.

 

Any resulting "fix" they put together in Lansing will have you labeled as running a mill. You have been directly named by those proposing the new laws. I believe you are helping them to build your own jail cell.

[Dr. Bob]

Be that as it may, what is being done about the 2 or 3? Why do we need them?

 

Just to clarify things, I have no professional or economic worries about the bills, my worries are for the patients that will be denied access because anyone that does certification exclusively will not be allowed to operate. That will reduce the number of certifications written, rather than increase it to get to the numbers our population justifies. I have already taken passage of the bills into account for my practice, and have for months. Initially I did it to provide a safer, defensible service for my patients. Now I am doing it to make sure I can still offer certifications.

 

I appreciate your concern, but will allow others to lead the fight from now on. I don't want to appear to bash folks, even though I've mostly singled out particular practices that should be avoided, like no record clinics, no physician clinics and pre signed certifications. I do none of those things. The ones that do should be shut down. That is what I've been calling for.

 

My name was mentioned for one reason. I do certifications. Because of the actions of clinics that cut corners and marketing companies, I've been lumped into the same category as them, something I object to. I have professional standards. I've called for them in the certification industry. If that builds a cell for me, so be it, I can and have defended myself.

 

Dr. Bob

[+Silverblue]

I'm glad Bb saw this thread, because gunnyhighway has gotten on my nerves. I don't know if what he's doing is reportable, so I hope someone's monitoring it. I'm tired of repeating myself to deaf a brick wall, and so are others. What part of, "I AGREE we shouldn't have to prove ourselves to government, leo, etc., when the law specifically says we're protected, etc." doesn't he understand? Yet he still continues to make his point as if he never read that WE ACKNOWLEDGE what the law says, but that LEO, ETC., ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW. We ALL AGREE WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO, BUT WE'RE BEING FORCED TO.

 

I do not want to repeat this again.

 

SOMEONE PLEASE REMOVE gunnyhighway from this discussion IF HE CONTINUES TO REPEAT HIMSELF AND REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE POINTS MENTIONED. Thank you. I never expected this but I should've realized the possibility SOMEONE would. OK, he made his point he disagrees with what we're being forced to prove and what we're being punished for, and I acknowledge his feelings etc.. Now we're just dancing around in circles. I want it to stop. I asked him to stop. I was respectful, agreed with him, explained to him. It's time to move on. Either we ignore him or he'll just continue till he's as blue in the face as this text.

 

I'm having a very bad day, I don't need this, but it's my responsibility to monitor this thread. There's very valuable info here. I decided not to bother listing the bad clinics, they've already been listed elsewhere, anyone reading these forums regularly knows who they are. If not, well, they may not read this thread either, so I don't know what to do. I hoped to help people avoid the pitfalls of trading convenience for loss of freedom AND medicine. I made a mistake, luckily I managed to stay safe.

 

I've finished my medicine, I'm not getting anymore and not renewing till I see how these proposed bills play out. I hope Dr. Eisenbud is still in practice, I'd really like to see him, no offense to Dr. Bob.

 

If these other so-called clinics are willing to turn things around, I'll be glad to recommend them, I'd be happy to meet with them and get their business cards to hand out to people.

 

I decided we should just list the reputable ones, that makes more sense, the others will be notable by their absence.

 

Sincerely, Sb

[burroughs]

I've sort of vaguely been following this so hopefully this is in-line with the discussion thus far. My experience that led me to finally seek out sativa to treat my condition took about 10 years. I've been seeing my current doctor for about 6 years. I have on again and off again given up hope of seeking relief, especially after a visit last summer when I went another round of prescriptions that went nowhere. A short while later my wife encouraged to see another doctor, and I also began looking at the amendment--realized I qualified--and then began to look for a new doctor. This led to my consultation which I really thought went more like some kind of Monty Python skit. Anyhow, it was not at all what I was expecting and wasn't really what I wanted. That said, I think part of the problem is me. I've never been a good advocate for myself when I've seen a doctor (like, a doctor where the practice isn't the back of a store... ) so I'm going to call up my regular doctor and make an appointment. My plan is to simply relate to him the positive effects I've had, how I medicate (capsules), and tell him that I'd like to begin seeing him regularly again (hopefully, he won't think I'm asking him out). I'm sure I will recount this to him nervously and awkwardly but I'll feel better for having made the effort and hope it goes well.

 

Personally, my perception of some of these places that don't have dr.'s and have pre-signed certificates is that they must be pretty rare. If I recall correctly doctors make a hefty amount and I can't imagine their motivation for so hastily risking a degree and a profession they spent at least a decade and considerable sums of money at.