Jump to content

Mmp Denies Disability Discount In Secret Move, Only "full Ssi Gets Discount (And They Informed No One) !


Murph
 Share

Recommended Posts

As Dr. Bob wrote (I am copying His Excellent article in Full) --

 

******************

 

 
12 June 2013
Dr. Robert Townsend
 
The series of house bills passed in the wee hours of the morning in the closing days of the last session went into effect April 1st this year. As some of you know, this was a Monday. The previous FRIDAY afternoon, LARA changed all the application forms, leaving all certification physicians in the state scrambling over the weekend to be in compliance.


Once again, we have an unannounced change to the process designed, in my opinion, to create another series of denials for patients. With no notice or announcement to the certification community, LARA has quietly REMOVED SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY from the reduced ($25) fee, leaving only full Medicaid and SSI (with paperwork proving SSI dated within 2 rather than 3 years of the application)...

I'm Dr. Bob Townsend. As an individual, I am outraged at this development. As a thinking individual, I look at the pattern of behavior by LARA as a broad based effort to undermine the MMMA program they are charged with administering. 

The following are, as I see it, clear indications of malintent on the part of these program administrators.

1. Sudden and in many cases unannounced changes in application forms just prior to implementation of various parts of the Act. They changed the form literally days before the MMMA went into effect in 2009. They changed the application form at the very end of the work week prior to the change in the Act on April 1st, and now quietly removed a major qualification for the reduced fee without informing those of us working in the field. The change to eliminate SSD can only be found if one goes to the state website and clicks on the link to either the qualifying paperwork for the reduced fee or the actual application form, which was revise 6/13 to remove SSD.

2. Prior to April 1st, certification applications were routinely rejected if a box was not checked listing the qualifying condition. This despite the qualifying condition being clearly written in the 'remarks' section under the boxes by the certifying physician. When asked about this, representatives of LARA indicated they did not have people 'qualified to interpret clinical notes'. Now that they have taken it upon themselves to require an explaination of the cause of a patients chronic pain written next to the checked box for chronic pain, they routinely reject the certification if a 'cause' of the chronic pain is not written in. Apparently they have now learned how to read if it allows them to reject applications.

3. Despite hand picking the medical review panel charged with voting on new conditions, once positive votes were taken on PTSD and Parkinson's Disease, both votes were invalidated based on the fact that even though the votes were 5-2 of the 7 individuals present for the votes, there were 13 members named to the panel and supposidly a clear majority of 7 positive votes was deemed 'required'. Then they claimed the make up of the panel was invalid by their own rules and had to be dissolved. Both actions occured on the last day allowed for action on the votes. One has to wonder if the conditions were voted down, we would have ever heard of any objections by LARA to the makeup of the panel. 

4. While no expert on Robert's Rules of Order, I do believe that in the case of all members of a panel not being present for a vote, the vote is allowed if there is a quorum (in this case 7 of the 13 were present and were a quorum) present, and the vote could be carried by a simple majority of the members present and voting. If correct, the months of work and testimony on behalf of PTSD and Parkinson's Disease were passed by a vote of 5-2 by LARA's hand picked new condition panel.

5. While tightening the requirements for certification, restrictions on P2P, and even the transportation of cannabis medicine by licensed patients in vehicles was regulated, NOTHING was done to address job security for cannabis patients, to encourage physicians to participate in the program (without the interference of their employers, clinics, or hospitals), or to increase access to medication by patients.



The overall picture I see is one of an agency that is doing everything it can to try and make the program it was 'forced by the voters' to administer fail. Application forms are rejected on a whim due to unannounced changes and unrequired explanations. Lip service is paid to the parts of the law designed to improve access for patients (the new condition panel), while every imaginable roadblock to make it harder for patients to qualify for the card, obtain medication, or move it is tossed up by the department and legislature.

We have had some victories. In Koon, actual 'impairment' was made the standard for driving. This was only common sense, cannabis stays in the system and many patients are clearly NOT impaired even though a blood test may reflect they had used cannabis hours before and tiny traces remained in their system. One can only wonder if Walmart Joe would still have his job if the same standard was applied. I am glad the SC ruled that the standard practice of 'we don't know what level results in impairment, so let's arrest everyone' is no longer acceptable. 

However the same court overruled Green and patient access suffered.

I don't agree with removing from the list of qualifying reasons to get a reduced fee or refusal to give a reduced fee to disabled veterans, but I don't believe there is an absolute requirement under the law to give anyone a discount, so I guess we should be glad we still have SOME qualifying reasons to get a reduced fee. I don't think a program with a $10 Million dollar surplus should still be charging the maximum fee allowed to patients that are ill and underemployed and least likely to be able to afford those fees. I don't think we should have to wait a year past the deadline for an annual report on the program, or that 3 years should pass without a new conditions panel being seated because the regulatory agency doesn't know it's own requirements for the panel or have a 'form' requesting a new condition be added written.

I am not a lawyer, I am not an expert in Parliamentary Procedure. But looking at the way this program is run by the state, I can recognize a stonewalling when I see one. Call your representatives and senators and tell them you- a voter from their district that helped put them in office, can see a stonewalling too. 

Ask them what they plan on doing about it.
Dr. Bob

 

******************

 

So the Bottom Line is they need Sued. Even an Administrative Challenge is better than Nothing - 

 

Which Brings me to my GRIPES.

 

1) We have so called Attorney at the Head of NORML and they have funds they collect for Membership  - so why not ONE lawsuit to enforce the Registry Program Rules ? If  LARA knew they WOULD get sued and dragged in front of a Judge for implementing illegally imposed new PROCEDURAL acts (like changing the programs application mid-stream without giving ANYONE NOTICE of the so called changes -  a clear violation of basic Due Process) it would seem to be a simple win -- or a "slam dunk" -- called summary disposition.  One Suit, 30 days later, one Hearing on Summary Disposition saying "the law says they have to do this in 20 days, and they are not doing it Judge, after 4 years they have never issued Registry Cards, or a Denial, in 20 days ....AND WE WANT AND COURT ORDER MAKING THEM DO IT AND BTW please make them give notice if they want to make any other changes BEFORE they make them (so our people do not become felons because they changes the rules and told no one).... Here is the rub to do this someone has to SUE them and obtain this type of Order.

 

AND If the State MM Program get sued once for something like violating these basic  parts of the Act, and get slammed for basic simple thing like this --- then (perhaps) LARA would then be a tad less likely to do things like this in the Future ? So far not one Lawsuit to enforce the Program rules has ever been filed to my information --- why not? With over 150,000 people having cards you would think it would have happened long ago. 

 

2) So to sue generally We would need an Attorney or Firm to do so (finding a disabled person who applied and was recently denied a card because of these unannounced changes to the Application, and No More Disabled Application Fee Discount ($25 instead of $100....and BTW, Why? Do they need more money with a multi-million dollar surplus?). It should be pretty easy suit to Win -- and  other Attorneys also exist  who have "specialized" in Medical Marijuana for years now, several even right HERE on this Board and again, not ONE lawsuit questioning why the Program Law is not being complied with in 4 years -- and demanding changes to the way LARA does things in the application process has EVER happened.

 

Why not?

 

There are Enough disabled people to pick a person to be a  Plaintiff  (Heck We all probably know a dozen) -- They *(LARA)* has never been called on to explain WHY they cannot provide Registry  Cards in 20 days -- as the law requires --  the Act uses the term "shall" which in Law circles or what is called  "statutory construction" SHALL used in Laws generally indicates it is mandatory meaning they MUST do it ------ so why is this not the first thing sued about ?

 

It would impact everyone  

 

The one question  why they cannot  get the Cards out in 20 days is pretty simple, especially when SOS gets Millions of Driver's Licenses out instantly ---

Some of Us realize We are all in this together. And what happens to One, could happen to You or I next.

M

Edited by Murph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yah. It was a real crude move by LARA. To our discredit, we have no one riding herd on Lansing and staying in tune with developments. There was a time when any and every peep from the opposition was closely watched and matters taken care of. It is not that I am waxing nostalgic, but am disheartened that effective work at the grassroots to protect ourselves ceased within the past few years, most notably under Cain.Thinking back to the public hearings at the onset of the law, we had people in Lansing who stood tall and completely stopped the MDCH, which was responsible for writing the rules at that time. Why the MMMA no longer participates in these issues has not been adequately explained despite my inquiries to the same, except to say that disseminating information is the purpose of this site, and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just cant imagine what the meeting was like for that change.

 

'yes, lets raise the prices on people who are sick and disabled and want marijuana'

'why?'

'because poor people should be spending money on food, not marijuana'

'but if we raise the price to be licensed, wont that cut money out of their food budget?'

'guess they can decide between buying food or medicine like all seniors do now, fpuck em'

 

guys, want to stop this now?

find some people willing to talk to reporters.

we need names and phone numbers + emails of the volunteers on SSD who this change affects.

then we'll spend time contacting reporters and matching them up with people who wish to tell their story to the news.

 

secret moo poo rule changes? lets shine some light on it with a few local reporters!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well GregS, sack up and hire an attorney and sue the State.

 

But you best have very deep pockets.  Greg Francisco just was amazing that day in Lansing, there is no question about it.  But not all situations require the same approach.  And Joe Cain is not to blame.  Sorry, he was never a player or a factor because while he certainly got his point across in a sense, he offended and turned off legislators, the MSP and local officials until they stopped listening and asked him to leave.   The power players never took him seriously.  They still do not, yet he made very good points at the distribution hearing.  And he testified on behalf of PTSD before the New Conditions Panel, and did a fine job.  He also has given his all at many hearings.  I can't say I always agree with his tactics and many opinions, in fact usually I do not.  But he sure as heck has done more than most.  I have to give him props on that.

 

I try and take a lower keyed approach, and do not preach or hang from the rafters screaming.  We all have our own styles and to lament the lack of public awareness forgets that most things are done in quiet work groups.  If you ask me, the quiet work CPU did on the four bills was very effective in neutering the most offensive language in the bills.  But to do that we had our members of all political persuasions go to their political contacts and be cordial and polite and convince them to make our idea's their own (which means we do not claim any credit at the time).  Now some would consider that ineffective I suppose, but to me that is just how things go in the real world.  Perhaps so, perhaps not.  But my opinion is that each person must make that call themselves, and it can never be goaded out of people.  In CPU we have members who remain totally quiet, yet write amazing legal briefs.  Some of the best amicus briefs in the last few years have come from our members working for FREE.  They do not publicize it, but that sure doesn't minimize their great work.

 

Remember the old bromide from my late pal Rodney.  When people wanted free from him he would tell them:  "There are two prices indeed, my price and free, but I reserve the right to determine when 'free' is appropriate."

 

So have strongly held convictions, it is fine by me.  But until you step into the ring and get bloodied, whipped and hassled, it is a hollow demand on your part to ask others to step up.

 

So Step up, buy a ticket, front row center stage....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deep pockets I ain't got. Sickness and injury took them from me. Notwithstanding, I am prepared to be engaged in whatever capacity I am able. My treatment is helping me to gain ground; but be advised that optimism is my cross to bear.

 

The respect that I have for CPU and your contributions helps keep me in the game, even if I am relegated to shouting from the student section. I understand the finer points of negotiation, and still have "Getting to Yes," written by, I think, Dr. Obvious around here somewhere.

 

RIP Swampy.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. Oakland deputy pleads to poaching charge The Argus-Press The Argus-Press | 0 comments

    CORUNNA — An Oakland County sheriff’s deputy has pleaded guilty to poaching turkeys in Shiawassee County, according to the Shiawassee County Prosecutor’s Office.

    Christopher Codotte, who lives and works in Oakland County, pleaded guilty in late June in the misdemeanor case before Judge Terrance Dignan, according to assistant prosecutor Ryan Painter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a tad bit confused by the responses.

 

These "changes" (eliminating SSDI discount, denials seeking "more information" on issue previously approved) and the Big One these changes were made without any public Hearing, no public input, and 

the crux, NO NOTICE.

 

To make changes to Law and Regulation the State is bound to Due Process. Which in a nutshell means some advance notice and the opportunity for a Hearing.

So that is the First thing - changes without any Notice.

 

Second, Much Like DHS "benefits" (not cash, but say Food Stamps, Utility Help, ect...), if any of these "Benefits" are limited, reduced, or  denied by the State, they have to give the person/claimant "due process" 

which means Notice, a Hearing, and an Opportunity to be Heard (by an impartial decision maker, e.g. Judge or Administrative Law Judge).

 

So the State of Michigan, Medical Marijuana Program is not doing any of this -- they are running Rouge over every person in the State  and much of this is procedural -- meaning they cannot make changes at the last minute, not tell persons affected, then deny the "benefit" without Notice (and not giving anyone an Administrative process, Hearing essentially, to challenge the change or denial.

 

SO I POSITED WHY NONE OF THE ATTORNEYS IN THE STATE WHO HEAD UP THE STATEWIDE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE DONE NOTHING ABOUT THIS?

It is a pretty rhetorical questions because I think everyone knows the answer - they are not getting paid $200  an Hour by someone.

 

It is pretty damaging for someone who has a card from day one of the program, with multiple renewals -- 3 years -- to then get a "denial" for the first time because they or their Doc did not put specifically what causes the "chronic pain" (something never before needed, as the prior 4 years all that was needed was the Certification that they had Chronic pain - not explaining what caused it.).

 

This alone is "actionable" as no advance notice was given by the Dept. about this at all - none. Nothing. Not even a simple letter to everyone ---

 

The problem is creates is massive, not to mention this "denial" often comes weeks after the Renewal Application is sent in (60 days is the earliest someone can sent in renewals per the Program).

And If this person has past the expiration of their previous card - then they have a real problem in addition to No Legal Protection under Sect. 4 for possession. A grow is probably also impacted and 

what was covered with the Card (Manufacturing) they now are not covered -- AND ALL OF THIS IS BECAUSE THE DEPT. HAS DONE OR MADE THESE CHANGES AND NOT TOLD ANYONE NOR
GIVEN ADVANCE NOTICE.

 

Citizens have the right not to be set up like this by the State -- as Dr. Bob noted in His article (and the main reason I posted a copy) is that this appears to be an intentional action by the Dept. to frustrate

rather than facilitate smooth operation of the Program.

 

In essence, the people caught up in this are being set up by the State to become criminally responsible, not because of any act or ommission by the Person/Patient -- but because of the Dept. lack of any Notice

for these changes. No part of any of the Laws on April 1, 2013, did this as they had nothing to do with the above type of changes. This was an act by the Dept. ADMINISTRATIVELY to change requirements from what

they were for years - to something new.

 

As you would note, the NEW LAWS that came into effect on April 1, 2013, We had ample advance notice to prepare (go out and buy a container to put in your trunk or lockable one as far from the Driver in vehicles without

one).


Ironically, the other changes no one was told about -- and this is what violates due process IMHO. It is a "slam dunk" because no one deserves to be set up bu the State to be guilty of a felony just because this Dept. changes the Rules mid-stream and did not tell anyone.

 

The entire Dept. needs sued (sorry to say) IF ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE "SHALL" REQUIREMENTS OF APPROVING OR DENYING CARDS IN 20 DAYS.

They can we all know it -- so the questions is what to do about it.

Obviously, no Attorney is going to Sue them on our behalf, so I guess the next best thing is someone to sue them pro se - which is certainly not the best way but it is better than nothing as they must be "encouraged" to come into compliance with the Law.

 

The First count would obviously be the 20 day issue.

The Second Count would be No Notice (Due Process).

Third could be new requirements without any Notice.

Fourth is no Hearing opportunity for change or denial of a Benefit previously had by participants.

 

This would obviously be best done in State Court (which is strange as in most cases the better forum would be Federal Court but given they would PROBABLY not do anything, the State Court in Lansing, Court of Claims,

I think is specified in the MMM Act for all enforcement claims).

 

I am not sure, and would like to ask if anyone knows of ANY enforcement action ever brought against the MMM Program Registry that anyone knows about. This would specifically be a Civil Action to compel compliance with the Law, often known as Mandamus to start, a few other claims for the above counts would be such as declaratory action.

 

If no Attorney steps up to Represent the above noted person, I think they are determined to go pro se -- even if they get the Registry Program to issue approval or denials in 20 days as they "shall" due under the Act, that

would be significant because I do not think they have ever, in 4 years or since 2009, been in compliance with the (even though they cash those checks real quick).

 

One thing can also add to it is asking for money damages at law in addition to the "Compel action" as money issues at law bring in a Jury to enforce them -- and impagine if some MM Patients were involved. Doubtful, but one never knows.

 

I am sure most people can understand the Program taking some time to come into compliance with the 20 day "shall" requirments -- but 4 years? Come on. The SOS does millions of drivers lic, plates, tags, boats, bikes, mopeds, and on and on -- and they do it good and instantly for a lesser fee than We pay --- the State is simply stealing the Application Fees and using them for other things than obtaining the needed equipment and trained people to do the job as required -- after four years it is way too much time to let this go (and I am sure they are thinking the same thing, that they can get away with almost anything as even these "slam dunk" issues have not generated one civil lawsuit to enforce the Act's requirements --- which is why I asked where is the Statewide so called "Representatives" of the Patients?

 

Why has not one enforcement action been brought?

Can we not get 100 or better yet, 1000 people to kick in some money ($10) to get the State to issue the Registry Cards in 20 days like the Law says they must?

Isn't ironic the State charges our People criminally for violating the Law -- yet they have never complied with it from the Start in getting Registry Cards out the Door in less than 20 days?

 

Does that not infuriate a few people willing to pay ten lousy bucks to try to enforce that one them ??? could get the money back if an Attorney did it and hammered for Atty Fees - but odds are no one would but that is 

a few bucks I would be, and I know a few others too, that would gladly donate $10 bucks on the off chance the Law was ENFORCED BY STATE COURT AGAINST THE DEPT.

 

So, I hope I have been clear - sue to force the program to comply with the LAWS (the Act) and to make them do things "properly" such as advance notice of significant administrative changes (that essentially are not even

administrative and impact the meaning of the entire program).

 

I know a few Here from my Previous disscussions have significant Legal skills, Caveat, and some others - so if they would like to chat outside this forum please provide some way to contact (such as PM) and lets

see if 10-2o people can be found to "steer" this somewhere - it cannot be left to 2 , 3, 4, or 5  people if it will benefit everyone. Are We so cheap and poor not a 100 people can be found to donate $10 each ?

WHat say you?


M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points all around Murph. The advocacy that was working real well early on after the initiation of the law has been lost, and the once premiere organization that stood side by side with us and among us and on our behalf is gone. The State knows this and is working Schuette's agenda against us, knowing that the disabled and disenfranchised will find it difficult, if not impossible, to stand on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make changes to Law and Regulation the State is bound to Due Process. Which in a nutshell means some advance notice and the opportunity for a Hearing.

So that is the First thing - changes without any Notice.

 

it says in the MMMA that the department may grant a sliding scale of income fee to pay for the program.

it doesnt say LARA has to.

conversely, it says the fee is only to pay for the program. wouldnt that mean they couldnt use that money to train officers? what does creating grants have to do with running a registry ?

i forgot what laws they added wrt. did anyone look up in it or contact a lawyer ?

 

i dont know if there is such duty to have open meetings act on LARA decision to change this stuff.

is a good question. did you contact abel or other lawyer who had a previous lawsuit against LARA to seat the first panel ?

 

i think it would be very interesting to FOIA the emails on whoever came up with those changes. that sounds like good info to have.

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobandtorey,

For the most part people or patients probably don't think of it when they got this new "denial" for either the increase fee or the new Application requirements.

When I was told He got His card "denied" for the FIRST TIME EVER because they now added a requirement that the Certification Doc must now write in a "reason" for chronic pain (which I am not so sure they even have the right to ask for -- as the Act says if a person has chronic pain they qualify not that they have to explain WHY they have chronic pain) I did not realize the seriousness.

Many have now gotten denied when they previously were approved (which in itself is wrong - who said they could even add this requirement? Not Us.

Not the Legislature.

No One --

 

"They" did it themselves. This is not a simple change. This is a massive change. The Act again does NOT say that We have to explain WHAT CAUSES our chronic pain -- simply the Doc has to Certify that We have it.

**********************

Because the Program does not and HAS NEVER been in compliance with the very terms of the MM Registry Program Act (e.g. notify Applicants in a timely manner or 20 days of a) a "denial", or b) issue the Card --- they are in violation of the very terms of the Act --- so think about this for a Moment. We have to comply with the Law, but they have never in 4 years?

*********************

AN EXAMPLE:
A Registered Patient with a Registry Card done originally in 2009, and three (3) prior Years of Renewals. All done with the Same information on the Application. The Person has a 12 Plant grow in their Basement. Every term of the act is meticously complied with to the point of being Anal.
But now, in the 4th years Renewal Application sent in 60 days before His Registry Card expires, all the Same information and a $25 fee for Discount (Disability on SSDI) instead of expected New Card, the person Gets a "Denial" -- the reason, they now added that the Doc must explain WHY this person has chronic pain. This is new and the person checks and nothing about this change is anywhere --
the Patients, the Docs, NO ONE WAS GIVEN ANY NOTICE OF THIS CHANGE. Nor where they advised the Discounted Fee was eliminated (and again, without any reason WHY).
Mind you in the prior three years this has never happened and the Application listed the same information verbatim each of the past 3 years.

The person now has the situation of having NO PROTECTION even though he sent in the Renewal Application 60 days before His Current Card expires. IF RAIDED He would have had no protection under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Program Act (Well Sect. 4, the so-called "immunity from Arrest" provision ...not because HE DID OR DID NOT DO SOMETHING as just noted He followed the Application procedure and Law to the Letter, and so did His Doctor.

But the State did this in secret and told no one. They not only added new requirements to the Application (without any notice)....they told no one about the Changes until People start getting denials. 


This is what is called " a Set Up." It might even be entrapment as through no act or intent, the person is now in violation of the Act and the Grow is illegal. If caught He is Manufacturing Marijuana.


I think any Judge and anyone can understand how bad this is -- the State HAS, AND APPEARS TO HAVE INTENTIONALLY WANTED TO MAKE 1000s OF PEOPLE IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT by doing this change -- and it is NOT a change to the MM Act -- it is administrative!!

 

The way they did it make those impacted by it NO advance notice. This is criminal !

 

What to do, Obviously you cannot have any MM if your denial is in hand. Got to move the Grow to Someone who has a Valid card or CG (and has the room and ability to maintain them) But wait, another change in the Law by the Legislature now impacts transporting plants ! With these changes transportation rules change and ONLY the card holding owner can move them, alone, to do so legally - so this  is a complete "jam up" and making illegal many people who were legal (if your card has now expired your in a serious jam) -- IF caught this could land the previously completely protected patient into felony charges and complete confiscation. I hope people are extremely careful - do not use the phone. Do not text. In person conversation is needed.

Not something you would think a State could do would you? Well they cannot but they did so - and the Question is what to do about it?

ADD ON:

This person just called to check on the new or re-submitted Application sent in 4 weeks ago - by certified mail. They said they did not have it in the "system" (the States Mail room is hyper-efficient so the program has , obvioulsly, a stack of mail 4 or more weeks old sitting from people re-submitting Applications that were suddenly denied.

Bottom Line, they are negligent and the State is violating some of the most basic tenants of Law  -- making many people Guilty when they are not and Were Not --

 

think all these 22 Raids that just happened around the State have anything to do with it? Schuette is all you need to know !

.it simply is wrong. It simply is illegal -- but to do something about it the process is to sue and challenge it and seek a restraining order to end this 

 

ALSO  It is pretty obvious those Who hold themselves out as Helping protect "our" interests are doing nothing.

 

We need to challenge this and now - HARD.



IF this is you I suggest you note if your willing to donate $10 bucks to get this challenged.

 

THIS IS A BACK DOOR ATTEMPT TO DAMAGE ALOT OF PEOPLE - SO IF YOUR UP FOR RENEWAL BE FOREWARNED, Send in the properly certified Physician's Certification. Send in the Complete Fee. And send it in an Envelope certified RRR.......

 

 am going to try to line up some real counsel to take a Suit and a TRO Request to the Court. Not sure it will work but something has to be done and done now......this is a crazy act by the Programs' new Head -- they chased all those previously running the program out of there and put in all new people (which will make the process to get your card even longer....)

 

Finally, this is not and not intended to be advice or any sort, and certainly not any legal advice - it is educational !

 


M

Edited by Murph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple of problems with the outrage I am seeing.

 

The MMMA states that a 'condition or treatment of a condition' which causes pain, nausea, etc can be used as a qualification for a card (this is paraphrased, not quoted).  The state CAN require you to list the condition that causes the pain under the MMMA.  The frustration I expressed in the article I wrote was that when it suited their needs (to deny cards) they apparently learned to read at LARA, thought they are still confused with you write on the line next to chronic pain '3 spinal fusion surgeries' but don't actually check the box that says chronic pain (that is a denial I got recently).

 

As for the 20 day rule, that is also covered by the MMMA, if they don't then your paperwork is good.  The approach we were working on a year or two ago was to prove that the police were not accepting valid paperwork like a card, which would have required the state to issue the card in 20 days.  It is hard and costly.

 

The point of the article was that there is good evidence LARA is undermining the program to the harm of patients because it was something the 'voters forced on us', and the chaos they were creating was being used to justify unnecessary restrictions.  

 

Dr. Bob 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make no mistake about it there are some people up there with full intentions of undermining this law........ and they are doing it. They are even getting some  patients and caregivers to help them do it.

 

I have come to the conclusion that I am not as bothered by the fact that they do not offer to the discount for SDI. I will just simply pay the 100 for 2 years and be done with it. But am still very upset at the reason they are doing it. I would also like to know when they are going to be made to only charge WHAT IT TAKES TO OPERATE THE PROGRAM......... AS it is now they are charging way way way more than to operate the program.

Edited by ozzrokk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Bob -

 

your above point is taken.

 

I know they can require that the reason for chronic pain must be noted -- but the underhanded way it was implemented, as you point out --  IS the problem. Legally We Citizens have a right to Due Process  of Law which entails various aspects but the one most impacted is  advance notice (of changes) before they are implemented as a reasonable man needs to know what it is required of Him to be in compliance, akin to safe Harbor -- not on Friday when it is imposed Monday.

 

I am not even sure the process for making these changes (to the application form and process) was properly implemented.  Being researched right now -- they really need to properly give notice to those directly impacted -- a letter to everyone on the Registry and their Docs would be reasonable. With a period of months in advance before it is actually implemented. Again, not substantive, procedural. 

 

Second, the Cards:

 

Our entire system is built on the "reasonable Man" basis. So I ask any reasonable person -- even if the paperwork is provided in the Act to be a substitute "Card" if you do not get a card  from the State in 20 days --- Is it reasonable that after 4 years the Program exists that they cannot, I woulld assert, will not issue them (as LEO is often saying "they did not have a card" -or- they use that as the basis for arrest, some perceived error in the paperwork).

 

Finally, The paperwork obviously contains much private information (and I for one do not want people having my Soc# or my Protected Health Information in front of them -- certainly do not want a State Actor, LEO, to read it ! So the card is very important and I don't think after 4 years it is UN-reasonable to require strict compliance with a Law.

 

How long is needed or is this intentional. I do not give them a pass just because the Authors of the Act's text had been through State's tactics that they just never issue the Cards.  If they cannot do it it's  High time they be ordered to comply.

 

 

The Card in 20 days is not unreasonable and the very requirement, and the very text of the Law - This is a simple thing to do after 4 years and again, it is intentional non-compliance.

 

There are a couple of problems with the outrage I am seeing.

 

The MMMA states that a 'condition or treatment of a condition' which causes pain, nausea, etc can be used as a qualification for a card (this is paraphrased, not quoted).  The state CAN require you to list the condition that causes the pain under the MMMA.  The frustration I expressed in the article I wrote was that when it suited their needs (to deny cards) they apparently learned to read at LARA, thought they are still confused with you write on the line next to chronic pain '3 spinal fusion surgeries' but don't actually check the box that says chronic pain (that is a denial I got recently).

 

As for the 20 day rule, that is also covered by the MMMA, if they don't then your paperwork is good.  The approach we were working on a year or two ago was to prove that the police were not accepting valid paperwork like a card, which would have required the state to issue the card in 20 days.  It is hard and costly.

 

The point of the article was that there is good evidence LARA is undermining the program to the harm of patients because it was something the 'voters forced on us', and the chaos they were creating was being used to justify unnecessary restrictions.  

 

Dr. Bob 

Edited by Murph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody interested in meeting head to head to consider these issues?

Sure thing anytime

what is it that you  think can be done about it ?

we have been complaining about the cards for over 4 years now and how did it work out now we our now getting cards out in 30 to 45 days back when this Law started we got a card in less then 15 days but back then you only needed it to buy meds from the outlet store's because you can't use  it in a court room

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...