Dr.Pecker
Well-Known Member
Its nice to have everyone talking about this now. So @Dr. Bob and @Adam from TC do I still need a lawyer on retainer or should I depend on you for the lawyer?
Hello michigan
- Thread starter GSTATUS
- Start date
Resinxtractor
Well-Known Member
I am just simply stating what occurred when I came in there. No agenda here just growing some reffer
I would love to see that subpoena sunshine buttercups . No agenda here brother. Just growing reefer and telling my experience.
I should have known better when I showed up and was told the doc was going to be late.
Had 3 of my patients go through CCC. All of them got signed by a different doctor....They all got Re-certified by guess who?
Also Adam From TC. Do you have any public court records where your Doctors have appeared on behalf of a patient they certified?
Talk the talk.....
.
I would love to see that subpoena sunshine buttercups . No agenda here brother. Just growing reefer and telling my experience.
I should have known better when I showed up and was told the doc was going to be late.
Had 3 of my patients go through CCC. All of them got signed by a different doctor....They all got Re-certified by guess who?
Also Adam From TC. Do you have any public court records where your Doctors have appeared on behalf of a patient they certified?
Talk the talk.....
Adam from TC
Member
I am not going to dignify your comments with any further responses. Go cause trouble somewhere else.
GregS
Well-Known Member
To begin, slander is spoken. Libel is written. It is an important distinction.
Bob Townsend holds some policy opinions that run contrary to patient and, more directly, caregiver protections under the law. I do not have time to respond at length or quickly regarding those issues. My wife was discharged from a hospital into home hospice. That is consuming a LOT of my time and energy. Suffice it to say that he agrees with the Court of Appeals in the combined cases of Hartwick/Tuttle, which is slated for hearing at the Michigan Supreme Court. There is more, and I will be happy to continue as time allows.No time or I would paste a link. Otherwise google is your friend.
Bob Townsend holds some policy opinions that run contrary to patient and, more directly, caregiver protections under the law. I do not have time to respond at length or quickly regarding those issues. My wife was discharged from a hospital into home hospice. That is consuming a LOT of my time and energy. Suffice it to say that he agrees with the Court of Appeals in the combined cases of Hartwick/Tuttle, which is slated for hearing at the Michigan Supreme Court. There is more, and I will be happy to continue as time allows.No time or I would paste a link. Otherwise google is your friend.
freebloody
Well-Known Member
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
We don't quote them because they have no impact on medical marijuana certifications. PA 512 specifically addresses the issue of telemedicine in reference to medical marijuana, and that is the end of it. The bills you are trying to use to justify telemedicine certifications only apply to medical practice in general, and in the case of certifications are directly and completely replaced by PA 512.
Here is the direct link: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/publicact/pdf/2012-PA-0512.pdf
Note that for medical marijuana certifications they require an 'in person' interaction between the patient and the doctor, IN PERSON. There is no way that a skype certification meets that requirement, and it is there in black and white. I sincerely hope you are no longer doing them, simply for the safety of your patients. It does not meet the current standard. period.
Dr. Bob
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
We have several we have cards for and experience with. But my recommendation is that if you have questions, ask them. They are the experts.
Dr. Bob
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
Yes, as a matter of fact I did appear for one of their patients, one I saw in person face to face in their office, and the section 8 was approved. Here is the link: http://www.drbobmmj.com/162-article-folder/262-bona-fide-dr-pt-relationship-defended-in-antrim-co.html
However, I was the one that saw that patient. Had it been a recent case (since the law changed in April 2013) and been done by another doctor by skype, it would have turned out differently.
Dr. Bob
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
Lara's job is to check the paperwork and the doctor's license, the acid test on the validity of the cert is in the court.
The issue is that there are places that will go through the motions and put a 'card' in your pocket for $50, but the prosecutor will eat that card alive. How much is a dismissal worth?
Last edited:
Adam from TC
Member
Greg S, sorry to hear about your wife. Also, thank you for making the distinction between slander and libel. I am not going to be baited here into discussing the issue of telemedicine. The law stands on its own, and creating divisiveness over this issue only hurts patients. There are a lot of scams out there in regards to certifications, not the least of which is delegation of authority. My advice is to continue to focus on seeing patients, supporting them and making sure they have informed consent in relation to their certification. Slander and libel aside, we are all doing the best we can with the resources we have available. I am officially done with this thread. You can continue with it if you feel you need to prove something, but I am going to continue to do what we do professionally to the best standards. Good luck with whatever you are up to, but it will no longer include me.
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
As long as those resources include a doctor physically present in the office to see the patient in person, I don't see any issues. That is what we do, with every certification, and that is what the law requires.
Here is the direct quote about that: from PA 512 of 2012 amending the MMMA
Sec. 3. As used in this act:
(a) “Bona fide physician-patient relationship” means a treatment or counseling relationship between a physician and patient in which all of the following are present:
(1) The physician has reviewed the patient’s relevant medical records and completed a full assessment of the patient’s medical history and current medical condition, including a relevant, in-person, medical evaluation of the patient.
(2) The physician has created and maintained records of the patient’s condition in accord with medically accepted standards.
(3) The physician has a reasonable expectation that he or she will provide follow-up care to the patient to monitor the efficacy of the use of medical marihuana as a treatment of the patient’s debilitating medical condition.
(4) If the patient has given permission, the physician has notified the patient’s primary care physician of the patient’s debilitating medical condition and certification for the use of medical marihuana to treat that condition.
The requirement for the doctor to be in the room with the patient is quite clear. Section 8 defenses require a bona fide relationship, and the bona fide relationship requires the doctor to be in person.
Dr. Bob
Here is the direct quote about that: from PA 512 of 2012 amending the MMMA
Sec. 3. As used in this act:
(a) “Bona fide physician-patient relationship” means a treatment or counseling relationship between a physician and patient in which all of the following are present:
(1) The physician has reviewed the patient’s relevant medical records and completed a full assessment of the patient’s medical history and current medical condition, including a relevant, in-person, medical evaluation of the patient.
(2) The physician has created and maintained records of the patient’s condition in accord with medically accepted standards.
(3) The physician has a reasonable expectation that he or she will provide follow-up care to the patient to monitor the efficacy of the use of medical marihuana as a treatment of the patient’s debilitating medical condition.
(4) If the patient has given permission, the physician has notified the patient’s primary care physician of the patient’s debilitating medical condition and certification for the use of medical marihuana to treat that condition.
The requirement for the doctor to be in the room with the patient is quite clear. Section 8 defenses require a bona fide relationship, and the bona fide relationship requires the doctor to be in person.
Dr. Bob
Last edited:
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
I'm so sorry to hear that brother, you'll both be in our thoughts and prayers.
GregS
Well-Known Member
Thank you. You sound like an interesting guy. If you are able to contribute constructively I'd like to have the conversation regarding said policy issues. It has been when things devolved into insults, speculation, lies, and fallacy that we have been dishearteningly engaged with Townsend. If you are able to avoid those, there are benefits to be derived.
Last edited:
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
I have decades of medical records documenting my many MJ approved medical conditions and the fact that all those real doctors won't touch an MMMA form is the true problem with this scheme. Having to provide my money and medical records to a pot doc that simply checks some boxes and provides a signature adds only injury to the insult. An industry born out of the corruption of another is just simply not reasonable IMHO
Well stated!
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
So, what is the consensus here? This is kind of important for patients to know.
Seems pretty clear that an in-person exam is now codified in to law based on what Dr Bob posted. If his info is correct, I'd say it's kind of irresponsible for CCC to continue doing telemedicine certs. Adam, you talked a great deal about being advocates for your patients, but your actions don't seem to back up your words IMO.
