1. We are currently experiencing issues with viewing and uploading images, our team is working on the issue.
    Dismiss Notice

Cards Being Revoked by State of Michigan

Discussion in 'Michigan Patients' started by Dr. Bob, Nov 20, 2017.

  1.  
    Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Well-Known Member

    We are getting reports of patients getting letters from the State of Michigan informing them that since they got their certifications over Skype without meeting with a doctor face to face, their cards are fraudulent and are being revoked.

    Are people here seeing that or were they isolated cases? Obviously they weren't seen by us and we follow the law and see patients in person rather than over the computer.

    Dr. Bob Townsend
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
  2.  
    T Mag

    T Mag New Member

    Wow you can do it over skype now...Thats Crazy!!
     
  3.  
    Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Well-Known Member

    No it has not been legal since 2013. State has been auditing and we are getting calls from patients that went to those clinics saying the state revoked their cards. The reason given was they didn’t see a doctor in person.
     
    apollo4201982 likes this.
  4.  
    TCH

    TCH Well-Known Member

    Nope. Lol
     
  5.  
    apollo4201982

    apollo4201982 Active Member

    What clinics?
     
  6.  
    TheMan13

    TheMan13 Well-Known Member

    Sounds ominous. Are they following up these revocations with raids on these patients homes to frame them as criminals? Nothing like the threat of lawfare for the holidays :eyesmoke:

    NASA Bruce @ 59 days.JPG

    Happy Holidays you Roll it Up trolls :bigjoint:
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
    leighgal, ProdigalSun and 313Jeff like this.
  7.  
    passmethelid

    passmethelid Well-Known Member

    meh until i see a picture of one of these letters from LARA..... dr bob you got a picture?

    i think last time , when a dr license was permanently suspended, maybe that doctor who threatened the judge and his lawyer? LARA might have sent letters to those certified patients ? telling them they needed to recertify.

    but i dont think they revoked those cards. or maybe gave them a grace period?
    this sounds like something new. maybe they got a doctor in a sting?
     
  8.  
    Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Well-Known Member

    No we have been contacted by two different patients and the issues is that the state is revoking the cards as fraudulent specifically because they were not seen by a doctor in person. Telephone and Skype, but we are getting details. I put this up to see if anyone else was hearing it, especially those that went to Skype clinics recently. One of the patients is coming in today, I'll post a letter if I can.

    Last year they had a report out they got all twisted about, including a report that one doctor 'saw' 11,800 patients in 2015. Then they started doing verifications of large numbers of patients- when were they seen, was the doctor on site and seeing the patient, etc. I'll post more details when I have them. This should only concern patients that saw doctors over the internet rather than in person across the desk, and probably just those that did it in 2016.

    Dr. Bob
     
  9.  
    Bigtacofarmer

    Bigtacofarmer Well-Known Member

    That is why most of us started giving our hard earned money to live doctors years ago!
     
  10.  
    passmethelid

    passmethelid Well-Known Member

    in court, the card wouldnt protect you if you didnt see a dr in person.
    because the whole card would be invalid. COA has ruled on this a couple times iirc.

    so its good that LARA is notifying patients at least.

    Dr Bob, maybe you could contact LARA MMMP and have them put something on the website about seeing drs over skype/internet ?
    They have such a worthless website.
     
  11.  
    chuckduck

    chuckduck Well-Known Member

    Happened to a friend of mine. Just like Dr. Bob said. He got the letter and his card was revoked. He never saw the doctor. I thought he said he just did it all over the phone.
     
  12.  
    Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Well-Known Member

    That is what we are hearing too, just wanted to confirm.
     
  13.  
    Bigtacofarmer

    Bigtacofarmer Well-Known Member

    I do not understand what having a permission slip had to do with medicating or legalization. I do not understand why a doctor can profit off my right to grow. This is all bullshit. About time everyone starts supporting freedom. Quit paying LARA and doctors. Start celebrating actual freedom. We voted for medical marijuana. Not for more rules.
     
  14.  
    Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Well-Known Member

    I have to tell you I tried years ago. When the first cases came to the courts, I contacted LARA for guidance to make sure I was doing it right. They made it clear they don't provide any information, they just process the cards and let the courts decide if it was good enough. IF they did put out a standard, people could use that as a defense- simply by showing they followed the standard. They refused to do that.

    That is one of the reasons we developed the defined bonafide dr/pt relationship. Not to cause problems or put card mills out of business (didn't work if some are still doing Skype Clinics and certs over the phone), but to give patients a solid defense not subject to the whims and interpretation of what a 'bonafide relationship' was by individual prosecutors looking to put cannabis patients in jail.

    There is a major problem from the last couple of years in that the state wasn't doing anything about those running Skype clinics- they just let the patients pay the price in court. It sounds like they are starting to move on them after acquiring evidence for the last year.

    Dr. Bob
     
  15.  
    Bigtacofarmer

    Bigtacofarmer Well-Known Member

    If you really wanted to help patients you would help push for laws that do not require doctors or regulations. It is just a plant!
     
  16.  
    nl5xsk1

    nl5xsk1 Well-Known Member

    Dr kumar was my dr and I never rec"d such a letter, will be looking for a bonified DR. ( in oakland county area), in December
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2017
  17.  
    Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Well-Known Member

    I happened to see one of the comments and I'll address it. We did go to 2 year cards (rather than having to go every year), I am a firm supporter of decriminalization/legalization and have been for years. What we want isn't the point, what we have is. There are four elements to the process of getting a certification- see a doctor face to face in person (not on Skype or over the phone), have your records confirming your position, doctor records a note for the visit and offers a follow up. That is what the process is, and in exchange you get to use a schedule 1 controlled substance if you qualify. To your liking or not, that is the way it is. You change that at the ballot box, not by complaining about the law as it is. This is a big improvement over not having the option to use it legally. We just put in the petitions to get it on the ballot, so stay tuned.

    Dr. Bob
     
    MrMayhem1134 likes this.
  18.  
    TheMan13

    TheMan13 Well-Known Member

    I believe there is quite a lengthy thread here from years back addressing this subject. The law we voted for (MMMA circa 2008 ) created the pot doc occupation to simply review a patients medical records and certify qualifying medical conditions to LARA in the licensing/card process. The later lawfare/regulatory capture game of lobbying for some "bonafide doctor patient relationship" was as problematic then as it is today IMHO. It never was about diagnosing or treating patients, regardless of how that guise would shore up a business model for say Denali Healthcare and the lawyers hired to lobby it into reality.

    @Dr. Bob Your "What we want isn't the point, what we have is." comment is offensive to my sensibilities. Do you have no shame or feel any responsibility for these patients being jacked around today? Isn't/wasn't the unintelligible legal equivocation already present in our drug war conflicted criminal courts too much of a threat to these patients prior to throwing around this bonafide bullshit? SMH
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  19.  
    Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Well-Known Member

    Do I have no shame because I've worked for 7 years to help people use a schedule 1 controlled substance to help make their lives better? No. Not one bit. I am sorry you have such a superficial understanding of the bonafide dr/pt relationship rules and how they helped patients stay out of jail, so I will inform you of the facts. First, yes, it is a plant, an illegal one. Second, before we actually created standards, EVERY prosecutor could hold your certification to a different standard, and you just got to hope your doctor (who isn't the one facing jail) took the time to meet whatever standard that prosecutor argued. It was unfair, the court was already stacked against us, and we were left to guess what was good enough.

    By having a set standard, we knew what to do to keep patients safe. Quite frankly, so do you and everyone else interested in certification, or should. If you want to get a cert over the phone in 2017, that's on you. Don't complain if you end up in jail. You were given the correct information. You choose to cut corners to save 25 bucks and put yourself at risk in the process. Quite frankly, if you are getting jacked around, you should have followed the rules in the first place. You were given a full road map to stay out of trouble.

    Hate to be blunt, but if you are going to be obtuse, blunt is what you need.

    Dr. Bob
     
  20.  
    Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Well-Known Member

    Next time you presume to tell a professional what they need to do by law, know what the law says. We don’t just sign off on your card because you pay us. We have to follow the ‘business model’ that is medicine.

    A physician shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by the Michigan board of medicine, the Michigan board of osteopathic medicine and surgery, or any other business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for providing written certifications, in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship and after the physician has completed a full assessment of the qualifying patient's medical history, or for otherwise stating that, in the physician's professional opinion, a patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the serious or debilitating medical condition, provided that nothing shall prevent a professional licensing board from sanctioning a physician for failing to properly evaluate a patient's medical condition or otherwise violating the standard of care for evaluating medical conditions.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017

Share This Page