Utah Cannabis Governance Structure Working Group Review
A committee met on Capitol Hill on Monday afternoon to discuss the governing structure of Utah’s medical cannabis program and how it could be improved with the formation of a single “cannabis commission” composed of representatives from industry, physicians, patients and regulators, similar to other industries in Utah.
Members of the committee included: Sen. Evan J. Vickers (R) (Chairman), Rep. Joel Ferry (R), Sen. Gene Davis (D), Sen. Derrin R. Owens (R), Rep. Jennifer Dailey-Provost (D) and Rep. Raymond P. Ward (R). In addition, representatives from both industry and patient groups were present.
Medical Cannabis Fees and Funds
Lacey Moore (financial analyst from the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst) gave a brief overview of the revenue generated from Utah’s medical cannabis program. Revenue from the program comes from the various fees collected by both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture and Food. Fees collected by the Department of Health from patients and businesses go into the “Qualified Patient Enterprise Fund,” whereas funds paid to the Department of Agriculture are deposited into the “Qualified Production Enterprise Fund.”
Total revenues from the Qualified Patient Enterprise Fund totaled $2,903,600 for 2021, with an estimated total of $4,696,900 for 2022 and $4,696,900 for 2023. Total revenue from the Qualified Production Enterprise Fund totaled $2,631,400 for 2021, with an estimated total of $2,637,300 for 2022 and $2,596,975 for 2023.
Most interesting to note though, the number of cannabis patients in the state for 2021 totaled
24,940 and is projected to increase to 54,352 in 2022 and 68,405 for 2023—nearly tripling from 2021. However, the number of Qualified Medical Providers (QMPs) in the state totaled 355 in 2021, but is only estimated to increase to 370 this year and go back to 355 in 2023. This increasing gap between the number of patients and the number of providers (QMPs) could be very problematic to the program in the coming years.
Industry Groups
Representatives from the Utah Cannabis Association and the Utah Cannabis Co-op were present to address their concerns about a rapidly growing industry that would benefit from having one governing board over Utah’s medical cannabis program, as opposed to two different agencies like it is now. Issues brought up included (1) a lengthy review process for license renewal, which can disrupt production in addition to getting quality products to patients in a timely manner. Also, (2) conflicting interpretations between departments and within departments creates problems with such things as staffing change (interpretations of the law can be different from new employees to previous ones.) Consequently, (3) the cost of doing business in the program prevents producers from providing affordable products.
To help alleviate this problem, it was proposed that Utah’s medical cannabis program be under one governing board composed of representatives of patients, state regulators, cannabis industry, and medical professionals that would have broad policy-making authority, much like other agencies in the state, such as the Wildlife Board in the Division of Wildlife Resources.
During this discussion, Sen. Vickers may have revealed his own personal biases when his jokingly suggested there be a “Sin Czar” to head both the department of alcohol and cannabis. His attempt at humor fell on deaf ears.
Patient Groups
Speaking on behalf of patient groups were Christine Stenquist and Valerie Ahanonu from TRUCE and Desiree Hennessey from Utah Patients Coalition. Connor Boyack from the Libertas Institute was also present.
There are three areas of concerns when it comes to patients and Utah’s cannabis program. These include: quality assurance, affordability and accessibility. In terms of quality assurance, issues brought up included labeling and safety information that is not standardized for providers or patients to easily understand, and defects with products or product recalls not being addressed in a timely manner. However, if there were just one advisory board reviewing overall quality across the life of the cannabis process (from seed to consumer) a robust program could emerge and self-regulation would be promoted across all areas of the industry.
In terms of affordability, there are unnecessarily strict enrollment fees and requirements through the QMP program, which is passed onto the patient; in addition to restrictive use and limitations on product availability. As a solution, releasing of more licenses would stimulate a true free market creating healthy competition, expanded patient options and improve quality while
lowering pricing.
Finally, in terms of accessibility, there are concerns about the QMP program, such as limiting the number of patents a doctor can prescribe cannabis to, in addition to the fact most QMPs are not the patient’s actual provider, who would know their patients needs best. However, patients may be hesitant to disclose their cannabis use to their primary doctor out of fear he/she would not approve. As a solution, QMP patient caps should be lifted for patients to choose their own provider, in addition to educating healthcare providers more about the benefits of medical cannabis.
The Utah Bee will continue to monitor these meetings and will provide updates here.
ADVERTISEMENT
