Jump to content

Questions For Lara


Dr. Bob

Recommended Posts

Note to the program via their email contact. I'll post their response if I get one....

 

========================================================================================

 

Hello,

 

This is Dr. Robert Townsend and I am active in the certification process. I have two questions and I would appreciate if you would respond with some guidance.

 

First, I’ve been asked about the renewal applications. It was my understanding that there was a 60 day grace period for renewals, but recently received a rejection for a patient that missed his date by a few days. As the forms are identical, with the only two differences being the renewal form has ‘renewal’ written on it and a place for the patients’ registry number, is this really appropriate? Had the application arrived a few days earlier, before the actual expiration date, on a ‘new applicant’ form, would it have been rejected as well? Please advise me when the cut off should be so the proper forms can be submitted.

 

Second, several of my patients have received rejections literally months after their form was submitted (March and April are the two that come to mind). As your own rules require you to reject an application within 15 days of receipt, and the patient is considered legal at 21 days, a rejection 4 months after the fact (especially since one involved checking a condition box, thought the condition was clearly listed in remarks, and the other didn’t have a DOB on ONE of the two places it was required) puts the patient at risk for criminal prosecution. If the form is incorrect, it has to be rejected under the rules in a set time frame or the patient is considered legal. Not rejecting it, allowing the patient to become legal and perhaps growing up to 72 plants, and then sending them a notice their license is no good puts them in a position of going to prison even if they immediately destroy their crop, not to mention deprives them of their medication.

 

Might I suggest that if a registration number is provided, even if expired, that not be a reason to reject an application as all the information from a new application is present as well. Secondly, if an incomplete application slips through the system and is caught months later, the patient has a strong case to say you missed your chance to reject it and you must approve it. Rather than fight this out in court and subject sick people to legal action and probable jail time, would a better response to send a certified letter to them requesting the information you missed in the legal timeframe and give them 14 days to submit the corrected form? Only after the 14 days expired with no corrected form would the patient’s application be considered denied. This is only fair as the situation occurred only because your department missed the error on first review. The patient should not be put at risk because of that screening error.

 

Recall that this is a voter initiative designed to provide safe access to medication for qualified patients. Every action we take should be followed by the question ‘how does this promote the access of the patient to medication’. Dwelling on inconsequential details (the renewal issue) or breaking the rules and putting the patient at risk later do not promote safe access to patients. Accordingly I request you respond and let me know what your policy is so I can pass it on to my patients. Patients are legally being held accountable for every error they make, even something as small as leaving the front door to their house unlocked (Barb Argo). They don’t need the added stress of hearing they have been illegal for 4 months because of the same tiny error on your part.

 

Thank you,

 

Dr. Robert Townsend

989-339-4464

 

==================================================================================================

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I think we also need a doctor to be one of our reps. The state is jacked up on the P2P, locked/enclosed, and dispensary issues, that they seem to forget they have an end of the law to hold up. The lawyers don't get to see the exact issues you just posted, and if they do, it is too late the state has made an unknowning criminal out of a patient because the state has failed to uphold the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not even realize there was this type of problem going on. I find it hard to believe that they are actualy violating there own policy. I would think (unfortunately) their statement that they review the applications and send out rejections within 15-20 days would not be a very good defense in court. Since the law staes that you must have a card, that is probably what a judge would go by. I would have felt much better if I would not have read this post at all. But it is nice to be aware that I am at risk of going to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not even realize there was this type of problem going on. I find it hard to believe that they are actualy violating there own policy. I would think (unfortunately) their statement that they review the applications and send out rejections within 15-20 days would not be a very good defense in court. Since the law staes that you must have a card, that is probably what a judge would go by. I would have felt much better if I would not have read this post at all. But it is nice to be aware that I am at risk of going to jail.

 

That is the difference between being reactive and proactive. I don't cut and paste information, I read it, digest it, figure out how it will affect my patients and come up with a solution to look out for their interests. I pay attention each time I get a rejection and look for potential problems. I also pay attention to court rulings and proposed bills and plan a response before I have to scramble. I've been working on the dispensary issue for months and have been working with lawyers to come up with a solution, which is going to have meds in the hands of patients legally by the first of the week. Right now we are just waiting to develop a couple of forms and meet with the prosecutor to make sure he is on board.

 

This type of work on behalf of patients is what sets apart a true activist medical practice from the alternative....

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note to the program via their email contact. I'll post their response if I get one....

 

========================================================================================

 

Hello,

 

This is Dr. Robert Townsend and I am active in the certification process. I have two questions and I would appreciate if you would respond with some guidance.

 

First, I’ve been asked about the renewal applications. It was my understanding that there was a 60 day grace period for renewals, but recently received a rejection for a patient that missed his date by a few days. As the forms are identical, with the only two differences being the renewal form has ‘renewal’ written on it and a place for the patients’ registry number, is this really appropriate? Had the application arrived a few days earlier, before the actual expiration date, on a ‘new applicant’ form, would it have been rejected as well? Please advise me when the cut off should be so the proper forms can be submitted.

 

Second, several of my patients have received rejections literally months after their form was submitted (March and April are the two that come to mind). As your own rules require you to reject an application within 15 days of receipt, and the patient is considered legal at 21 days, a rejection 4 months after the fact (especially since one involved checking a condition box, thought the condition was clearly listed in remarks, and the other didn’t have a DOB on ONE of the two places it was required) puts the patient at risk for criminal prosecution. If the form is incorrect, it has to be rejected under the rules in a set time frame or the patient is considered legal. Not rejecting it, allowing the patient to become legal and perhaps growing up to 72 plants, and then sending them a notice their license is no good puts them in a position of going to prison even if they immediately destroy their crop, not to mention deprives them of their medication.

 

Might I suggest that if a registration number is provided, even if expired, that not be a reason to reject an application as all the information from a new application is present as well. Secondly, if an incomplete application slips through the system and is caught months later, the patient has a strong case to say you missed your chance to reject it and you must approve it. Rather than fight this out in court and subject sick people to legal action and probable jail time, would a better response to send a certified letter to them requesting the information you missed in the legal timeframe and give them 14 days to submit the corrected form? Only after the 14 days expired with no corrected form would the patient’s application be considered denied. This is only fair as the situation occurred only because your department missed the error on first review. The patient should not be put at risk because of that screening error.

 

Recall that this is a voter initiative designed to provide safe access to medication for qualified patients. Every action we take should be followed by the question ‘how does this promote the access of the patient to medication’. Dwelling on inconsequential details (the renewal issue) or breaking the rules and putting the patient at risk later do not promote safe access to patients. Accordingly I request you respond and let me know what your policy is so I can pass it on to my patients. Patients are legally being held accountable for every error they make, even something as small as leaving the front door to their house unlocked (Barb Argo). They don’t need the added stress of hearing they have been illegal for 4 months because of the same tiny error on your part.

 

Thank you,

 

Dr. Robert Townsend

989-339-4464

 

==================================================================================================

 

 

As a patient this is just another upsetting group of facts . It is good you write on behalf of patients illness and injury are overwhelming enough without all this hatred and discrimination by people leading to violations of technicalities . This letter should be published in a paper the public needs to know . This is so sad .and patients cannot benefit from this progarm with all the discrimination and confusion going on . Health care in our State is very unorganized and people new to cannabis are not prepared for the war the Government and the parties seeking to profit by regulations are pushing on them .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until we have politicians who respect the voters wishes this is not going to change one bit.

 

Why isn't the Qualifying Conditions Review panel in place?

 

How-why is AG being allowed to maliciously prosecute-persecute one individual segment of society...?

 

Not until the current political parties in charge are ousted by recall or election defeat will we have a the chance to fully implement the MMMA of 2008.

 

First job at LARA would be to fire each and everyone there starting from top...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>Since the law staes that you must have a card, that is probably what a judge would go by.<snip>

But it doesn't say that. Subsection 9(b) says that a copy of one's paperwork (on the twenty-first day after LARA's receipt of the application - use Certified Mail) is the legal equivalent of a registry identification card. I don't recall seeing this when I voted for the law. So; this means that MDCH (or LARA) added it to fit the fact that they were not following the letter of the law.

 

As far as I'm concerned, nothing about the MMA needs "fixing" except the speed with which LARA is processing applications and issuing cards. And I guess that appellate court ruling that ignored the legal definition of "transfer" has to go. The stuff these despots are trying to do ought to punishable as treason against the People and State. If they're so anti-Democratic that they have to undermine democracy (note the small "d"; the "right" often misunderstands the distinction) to make a point, they must be very insecure about their grip on "power". And, if they don't believe that they lead by the consent of the governed, then what is guiding them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...