What Type Of Access Do Patients Want?

[Restorium2]

Would this legislation be more palatable to you all if provisioning Centers were not allowed to grow their own, but were required to buy from caregivers and patients?

 

If so, would you favor or oppose mandatory purity testing for all meds sold through a provisioning center?

 

Please do not misinterpret these questions as statements of opinion, I am merely trying to gauge the general attitude.

With what we have seen as the intent of this legislature, there is no way that you can expect anything patients really want coming out of their work. What you would expect to see is them doing more of what we have witnessed most recently, more of them giving law enforcement what THEY really want. They have a track record that we can easily go by. This is a no brainer if you have been following what the legislature has been doing for law enforcement, compared to what the have done for medical cannabis patients. You might as well be asking Attorney General Schuette for stuff when you are asking this legislature for help. Hey Bill, what you got in a bill for us patients?

[Restorium2]

Thank you for the response. I'm not sure we could effectively limit profit taking. That may be something best left up to the market.

 

Now, if a caregiver or caregivers own(s) a provisioning Center, should they be allowed to sell their meds at their provisioning Center?

You are way past where you should be Safety Center Man. You can't get past the first line where they want to regulate 'like entities'. Did you skip over that part?

[Hayduke]

We can only deal with the language that is in the bill that was submitted. In it it gives PC's rights of cultivation. Unlimited cultivation at that. I see no plant count limit in this bill. Additionally the PC's may transfer unlimited amounts to other PC's. This to me sounds like a monopoly for PC's.

 

I do not support mandatory testing.

 

I do not support giving PC's more rights than patients and/or caregivers.

[Highlander]

Thank you for the response. I'm not sure we could effectively limit profit taking. That may be something best left up to the market.

 

Now, if a caregiver or caregivers own(s) a provisioning Center, should they be allowed to sell their meds at their provisioning Center?

 

And that is why I am against "dispensaries" as a practical matter. There is no good way to assure they can't take over. We know business will take over if/when it can. That is the sole purpose of business. To make money. It is kinda like asking the fox to eat the grain instead of the chicken. Foxes eat chickens. That's what they do. So you don't keeps foxes and chickens together.

 

One option is to require that they are non-profit and put salary controls in place.

 

Hayduke also reminds me that I am not for PCs having more rights than people.

[SFC]

They could have written the bill with a much more inclusive intent than they did. The language is completely one-sided and their lobbyists words only reinforce the facts.

[Northern Lab]

 

 

Based on my discussion a few months ago with my Senator John Pappageorge, and Jones's most recent Off the Record appearance, I'd say there is a strong Senate contingent that desires this.

 

I don't see how that would even be workable, which is probably the intent.

 

 

 

You are way past where you should be Safety Center Man. You can't get past the first line where they want to regulate 'like entities'. Did you skip over that part?

 

Resto doesn't like the phrase "like entities". Got it.

 

I'm just poking ya a little bit, in all seriousness though, I believe the phrase you are referring to is meant to cover labs. I'm not sure why they phrase it that way, but it seems like an easy fix. Change the words" like entities " to "safety compliance facilities " and we're good so far, eh?

[OG Fire Beaster]

"should patients not be "allowed" to decide for themselves"?. Yes, patients should be allowed to choose.for themselves. Read the act, these are the options. Grow yourself or get a caregiver.

What is the hassle of someone else growing for them? Please answer

What you want is the choice to have multiple caregivers growing for you via dispensaries. so be it at a high price.

 

There are many possible answers to the question of "what is the hassle of someone else growing for them". Some patients don't want to give plant rights to another person that is linked to them via the registry for example. Some patients don't want to be dependent on one other person only to supply their meds to them. Some patients are paranoid about the exposure that they could create for themselves by assigning their plants to another. Those are just a couple quick ones.

 

Many patients are perfectly happy using a caregiver. Others are not.

 

What I want is many different avenues of safe distribution/access. Not just one.

[OG Fire Beaster]

It should not be a big surprise to people that places like Oakland county will try and screw people over. They have done it in the past, are currently doing it, and will continue to probably do so in the future. This bill, for now, allows the local people of that community to take more control over the policies in that community.

 

Like entities are delivery services, farmers markets, compassion clubs, testing labs, and other "like entities". A Pt and a Cg are still a Pt and a Cg per the MMMA this does not change that. The regulations that may be imposed are for PC's, safety compliance centers, and like entities. It does not state that they may regulate a Pt or a Cg. It specifically includes all 4 of those in the definitions and has two sections on what they may pass regulations on. That obviously does not mean that some places wont try to do that though.

 

Once again there is no mandatory testing language in this bill at this time. I do not support mandatory testing. I am fortunate that I live in a community that is very pro medical marijuana. If this bill passes a Pt can still be a Pt and a Cg can still be a Cg. If a PC serves no purpose to you then don't use it. If they create a monopoly over PC cultivating so what. If you don't want them then don't go to one. You can still be a Cg with 5 Pts and have no part in any of the other things. This does not amend the MMMA.

 

All these people are saying things are fine now, we don't need alternative access. Then they want to complain about well they might monopolize the PC market. If you have your way there is no PC. So if a PC becomes a reality just don't go to them. Unless you are saying that them having a monopoly will somehow effect you and your 5 patients? If so please explain what you are talking about.

 

In a hurry probably a lot of mistakes. Will edit later.

[purple pimpernel]

I think yall should have a look at this......kinda gives you more of an idea about the 'real' agenda--fk! my blood is boiling!!!

 

be sure to study the first paragraph well....every word

 

seems like a done deal with this corporate $ behind it and the repubs lining up to support it--

 

so now you will have to go thru media wipe and pay additional $$ if you want to visit clubs....looks like they ripped off Richard lees original pt ID center model....after they shut him down....

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50870640#.USUd_Wt5mK1

 

....it's on every major news group as if it's allready a done deal--??? wtf??

 

and why do they keep running this article...?...2-3times in a week??

getting us used to it....?

wat their gonna 'shove' down our throats...?

 

notice how Calton says more sponsors wanted on the bill but were too late.......

do they know something we don't?.....like what they are going to do to our law...?

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20130219/NEWS06/130219087/Michigan-medical-marijuana-bill-legalization

 

....I think the MSC ruling was a 'set-up' for this---jmo

Edited February 20, 2013 by purple pimpernel

[OG Fire Beaster]

Purple

 

I see an article about a company that seeks to fill a potential need. They offer data tracking services and would like to have its product used in Michigan. This bill does not require electronic data tracking, at this time. If a PC were open and had a lot of customers then something like this may be useful to them. I guess im not really seeing the problem with that article. A company wants to make money. So. I dont think they will alter the bill to require the use of Media swipe software. I guess that is a possibility though.

 

EDIT: The other article didn't really seem that bad to me either.

 

Its how buisness works. A need is found and someone fills it. Then they are paid for their services. I don't see the problem. Unless the problem is just that someone, somewhere, might make money.

Edited February 20, 2013 by OG Fire Beaster

[purple pimpernel]

patient security solutions and financial products company for the medicinal marijuana 'and'-----health care industry----today announced after the trading session on February 19th, the state of Michigan introduced new proposed legislation titled as House Bill 4271 outlining -----"new requirements" for Michigan's medical marijuana statewide program.

 

 

What's particularly encouraging about the HB 4271 is that it has an unusually high level of bipartisan support: Eight Democrats and eight Republicans are cosponsoring the measure. This renewed support and clearly defined guidelines within the proposal now provides a meaningful chance at passage over a similar one that lost ground in committee last year.

 

 

anytime politicians 'line-up' to support something ....especially mmj related ....makes me worry-

Edited February 20, 2013 by purple pimpernel

[OG Fire Beaster]

Did you not read the Bill purple? It states that a PC must track sales for 90 days to ensure compliance with the 10 day 2.5oz rule.

 

So a company that works in the health care industry providing data tracking solutions wants to expand into a market that may soon require data tracking of some sort. Get it?

[purple pimpernel]

MediSwipe's collected data will be stored off-site in a ----licensed Medical Marijuana state ----(???not michigan???)of which access will only be provided to municipal employees performing an inspection or a provisioning center agent.

HB 4271 further states "Confidential dispensing records under this act are subject to reasonable inspection by a municipal employee authorized to inspect provisioning centers under municipal law to ensure compliance of this act, but may be stored off-site."

To enhance the security of identifying a patient or Caregiver, MediSwipe's kiosk will confirm the identity of the individuals by making a scan of their driver's license as well as their medical Marijuana ID Card and providing patient authentication over a secure compliant line in a matter of seconds.  Provisional centers will no longer need to guess if the ID cards that are being provided are legitimate or not as the MediSwipe process has helped eliminate fraudulent activity of fake cards out of the equation.  The provisioning center agent will only need a voucher confirmation from the patient or caregiver that has been verified by the closed loop secure system. Additional measures will be added in the coming months via facial recognition and bio-metric measures if required.

 

sounds like they're trying to build 'data' bases with all of us on them.....more control and regulate BS

 

 

Edited February 20, 2013 by purple pimpernel

[SFC]

Here is the entire article.

 

MediSwipe Inc. Announces New Michigan State Legislation HB 4271 Introduced February 19, 2013 Outlining Medicinal Marijuana Go Forward Plan for State

 

New House Bill Creates Key Role for MediSwipe as Leading Provider of Digital Patient Identification, Medical Data Storage and Payment Solutions Now Required by State Caregivers and Provisional Centers

 

Below:

• 
  
  • Discuss
    

  [*]

  • Data
    

  [*]

  • Related
    

Advertise | AdChoices

 

 

 

 

 

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 20, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- MediSwipe Inc. ( www.MediSwipe.com) ( MWIP), a patient security solutions and financial products company for the medicinal marijuana and health care industry, today announced after the trading session on February 19th, the state of Michigan introduced new proposed legislation titled as House Bill 4271 outlining new requirements for Michigan's medical marijuana statewide program.

A Republican state lawmaker introduced the bill yesterday that would allow individual cities to decide how medical marijuana caregivers and provisional centers could continue to operate within their boundaries. Under the bill, municipalities could also set up regulations covering the location of centers and possibly institute other operational rules.

The proposal by Rep. Mike Callton comes just two weeks after the state Supreme Court essentially ruled that patient to patient dispensaries are illegal under Michigan's medical marijuana laws, a devastating decision that could force all of the estimated 75-100 dispensaries currently operating to close. What's particularly encouraging about the HB 4271 is that it has an unusually high level of bipartisan support: Eight Democrats and eight Republicans are cosponsoring the measure. This renewed support and clearly defined guidelines within the proposal now provides a meaningful chance at passage over a similar one that lost ground in committee last year.

HB 4271 suggests a secure patient identification system that MediSwipe has already developed via a HIPAA and PCI Compliant system as outlined in Section 10:

"A provisioning center shall ensure compliance with the dispensing limit under subsection (9) by maintaining internal, confidential dispensing records that specify the amount of medical marihuana dispensed to each registered qualifying patient and registered primary caregiver and whether it was dispensed directly to the registered qualifying patient or the registered primary caregiver."

Further, Section 10 also requires all entries to include date and time of when medical marijuana is dispensed to the patient or caregiver which falls in line with the data collection that will be incurred by the EMR system developed by MediSwipe.

"Each entry shall include date and time the medical marihuana was dispensed."

 

 

Advertise | AdChoices

 

 

 

 

 

Due to the nature of the MediSwipe system, all data can be kept for up to 5 years on its Digital ID Cards and will be digitized to be attached to a Patient's or Caregiver's Registry ID Number instead of their name as to follow HIPAA compliance on protecting the Patient's identity if the card was ever stolen or compromised.

"Entries shall be maintained for at least 90 days....a record shall be kept using the patient's or caregiver's registry identification card number instead of the patient's or caregiver's name."

MediSwipe's collected data will be stored off-site in a licensed Medical Marijuana state of which access will only be provided to municipal employees performing an inspection or a provisioning center agent.

HB 4271 further states "Confidential dispensing records under this act are subject to reasonable inspection by a municipal employee authorized to inspect provisioning centers under municipal law to ensure compliance of this act, but may be stored off-site."

To enhance the security of identifying a patient or Caregiver, MediSwipe's kiosk will confirm the identity of the individuals by making a scan of their driver's license as well as their medical Marijuana ID Card and providing patient authentication over a secure compliant line in a matter of seconds. Provisional centers will no longer need to guess if the ID cards that are being provided are legitimate or not as the MediSwipe process has helped eliminate fraudulent activity of fake cards out of the equation. The provisioning center agent will only need a voucher confirmation from the patient or caregiver that has been verified by the closed loop secure system. Additional measures will be added in the coming months via facial recognition and bio-metric measures if required.

Due to MediSwipe's business model in Digital Identification Electronic Medical Record Management, this will create an audit ready and compliant system to provide secure access to Patient's and Caregiver's across the State of Michigan.

The entire Bill may be seen here: http://www.legislatu...13-HIB-4271.pdf

"We are extremely pleased that HB 4271 is receiving the support from both sides of the aisle and hope that bi-partisan support will fast track this new legislation in Michigan. It is almost as if the state has taken a page from our business plan, setting requirements and guidelines completely in line with our existing software solutions including compliant medical records storage and reporting. It is also quite ironic that this bill hit the floor just one day after our company demonstrated the system to numerous caregivers within the state who have made firm commitments to install the MediSwipe ID system on behalf of several thousand patients," stated, B. Michael Friedman, CEO for MediSwipe.

"With the current increase in monthly revenues from our elective surgery financing division and first orders of our patient identification software in Michigan and interest from Massachusetts, combined with the recent liquidity and price increase of our common stock, we have received strong commitments from the investment banking community to ensure our continued success within the sector," further added Friedman.

About MediSwipe Inc.

MediSwipe Inc. ( www.MediSwipe.com) provides innovative patient solutions for electronically processing transactions within the healthcare industry. MediSwipe provides terminal-based service packages and an integrated Web Portal add-ons for physicians, clinics, hospitals and medical dispensaries that include: digital patient records, Electronic Referrals, Credit/Debit Card merchant services, Check Guarantee and Accounts Receivable Financing.

FORWARD-LOOKING DISCLAIMER

This press release may contain certain forward-looking statements and information, as defined within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and is subject to the Safe Harbor created by those sections. This material contains statements about expected future events and/or financial results that are forward-looking in nature and subject to risks and uncertainties. Such forward-looking statements by definition involve risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of MediSwipe Inc. to be materially different from the statements made herein.

 

CONTACT: MediSwipe Inc.

248.262.6850

www.MediSwipe.com

info@mediswipe.com

© Copyright 2012, GlobeNewswire, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Edited February 20, 2013 by SFC

[purple pimpernel]

pik the mofo apart....it's full of cryptic 'read between the lines bunny muffin'.......

 

 

"We are extremely pleased that HB 4271 is receiving the support from both sides of the aisle and hope that bi-partisan support will fast track this new legislation in Michigan. It is almost as if the state has taken a page from our business plan, setting requirements and guidelines completely in line with our existing software solutions including compliant medical records storage and reporting. It is also quite ironic that this bill hit the floor just one day after our company demonstrated the system to numerous caregivers within the state who have made firm commitments to install the MediSwipe ID system on behalf of several thousand patients," stated, B. Michael Friedman, CEO for MediSwipe. 

 

 

this tells me the MSC ruling was a setup for this....jmo

 

 

and notice how they are trying to plug their stock with this article........

 

the whole thing seems nefarious and big corp comin in the door....

 

this is what dispensaries are willing to do for $and access to the market....blo the big guys at our expense!!

 

they are opening the door for the big $$ and SFC is right ....they will be left holding feces....

 

I can't wait to see their little sign wiggles advertising oz for 139$---

 

those mofo!!

 

and so everything that has happened in mich plays right into their 'business model'....hmmm

Edited February 20, 2013 by purple pimpernel

[OG Fire Beaster]

This company is fishing for investors so they are touting this as a need that they can fill in order to show that their buisness model is profitable. Once again that is how buisness works. The bill allows the records to be stored off site. The bill does not require electronic data tracking(at this time). This does not seem like a big issue to me. Keep on top of this though to watch for anything else that looks bad and scary.

Edited February 20, 2013 by OG Fire Beaster

[Restorium2]

I don't see how that would even be workable, which is probably the intent.

 

 

 

 

Resto doesn't like the phrase "like entities". Got it.

 

I'm just poking ya a little bit, in all seriousness though, I believe the phrase you are referring to is meant to cover labs. I'm not sure why they phrase it that way, but it seems like an easy fix. Change the words" like entities " to "safety compliance facilities " and we're good so far, eh?

That was just the first line. This bill is riddled with ways that our rights will be infringed upon. There's no way that there will be two levels of regulation going on in this state. If you set up regulation for dispensaries you are setting up regulation for all of us. Right now we don't have regulations. Do you understand how good we have it because of that? You are willing to throw that away for what now?

[roadworkahead]

There are many possible answers to the question of "what is the hassle of someone else growing for them". Some patients don't want to give plant rights to another person that is linked to them via the registry for example. Some patients don't want to be dependent on one other person only to supply their meds to them. Some patients are paranoid about the exposure that they could create for themselves by assigning their plants to another. Those are just a couple quick ones.

 

Many patients are perfectly happy using a caregiver. Others are not.

 

What I want is many different avenues of safe distribution/access. Not just one.

Patients are not giving plant rights to another. A caregiver provides a service. They grow your medicine. IMHO having one person having your info and you thieirs, is alot safer than several dispensaries and dispensary workers(which changes often) having your files,

Read an article about a dispensary that closed and patients records were found in the trash, blowing in the wind. Safe? absolutely not.

Please explain what kind of exposure a patient would create for themselves by a caregiver providing a personal service for them.

[OG Fire Beaster]

That was just the first line. This bill is riddled with ways that our rights will be infringed upon. There's no way that there will be two levels of regulation going on in this state. If you set up regulation for dispensaries you are setting up regulation for all of us. Right now we don't have regulations. Do you understand how good we have it because of that? You are willing to throw that away for what now?

 

Rest

 

To help me understand your views better can you please describe to me the ways that this bill is riddle with ways of infringing on the Pt/Cg MMMA model. Specifically how this bill will add to or take away from the Sec 4 and Sec 8 rights that are in the MMMA. What regulations will this bill impose on people that do not participate in what it authorizes and only participate in what is allowed under the MMMA.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Patients are not giving plant rights to another. A caregiver provides a service. They grow your medicine. IMHO having one person having your info and you thieirs, is alot safer than several dispensaries and dispensary workers(which changes often) having your files,

Read an article about a dispensary that closed and patients records were found in the trash, blowing in the wind. Safe? absolutely not.

Please explain what kind of exposure a patient would create for themselves by a caregiver providing a personal service for them.

 

So you are saying that when a Pt chooses a CG to grow for them that they are not assigning their grow rights to the Cg?

 

In the same example of a dispensary throwing records in the trash a Cg could throw copies of documents in the trash. Or lose their card with the patients name and address on the back.

If a patient allows a Cg to grow their plants (they are not the Cgs plants they are the patients plants) and the Cg does something illegal, that might not somehow expose the patient in any way?

[Restorium2]

Rest

 

To help me understand your views better can you please describe to me the ways that this bill is riddle with ways of infringing on the Pt/Cg MMMA model. Specifically how this bill will add to or take away from the Sec 4 and Sec 8 rights that are in the MMMA. What regulations will this bill impose on people that do not participate in what it authorizes and only participate in what is allowed under the MMMA.

There is strong evidence that caregivers will get treated exactly like they are a dispensary. You will say that is illegal. It will happen anyway. Then all these regulations the bill spells out get hung around the necks of caregivers trying to do this as economically as they can for their patients. They will have to pay the traveling Inspector Safety Man to tell them if their grow and cannabis is worthy. There will not be two levels of regulation in Michigan. Everyone will be burdened with this over-bearing, not needed, regulation.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Restorium2

[SFC]

Who are you OG? You are not just a passive participant in this. Which group are you here stumping for? Your arguments have a very familiar ring to them. I just haven't put it together yet.

[OG Fire Beaster]

Rest what is this strong evidence? If a caregiver is only transferring to the 5 patients that they are allowed to then I do not see anyway of coming to the conclusion that they will be viewed as a PC. A PC is a commercial entity.

[Wild Bill]

If there was no demand for dispensaries they would cease to exist due to a lack of customers. I personally find it odd that anyone would want to buy something that nature gives you for free, but that's just me.

 

I am absolutely 100% certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that there will be some sort of government regulated sales of cannabis. If the government can't make money on it they won't allow it.

 

If there are people who want to make purchases in this manner and can do so with government consent then I think that they should be able to do so.

 

If the MMMA actually overrides all other medical marijuana statutes as it says then how would these local communities be able to enforce any new restrictions?

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT (EXCERPT)

Initiated Law 1 of 2008

333.26427 Scope of act; limitations.

 

7. Scope of Act.

(e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act.

 

If they try to lump caregivers in with for-profit entities it would be simple enough to determine. Is your product available to anyone who has a card or only to your registered patient?

com·mer·cial

1.

a. Of or relating to commerce: a commercial loan; a commercial attaché.

b. Engaged in commerce: a commercial trucker.

c. Involved in work that is intended for the mass market: a commercial artist.

 

 

The problem we are going to have is the same one we are having now, politicians, LEO's and prosecutors muddying the waters and twisting the law to their own ends. Maybe this will give them bigger game to go after and get the patients out off their radar.

[OG Fire Beaster]

LOL SFC!

 

I would of thought that you could of guessed by now? I'm the Boogey man. BOO