cannabisnews.com: Insurers Spurning Medicinal Pot Use Insurers Spurning Medicinal Pot Use Posted by CN Staff on July 23, 2003 at 23:01:55 PT By Steve Sexton, The Washington Times Source: Washington Times Insurance companies are leaving doctors who prescribe marijuana to patients personally liable in malpractice cases involving their use of the drug, according to a report released yesterday. With some states and local jurisdictions ignoring a federal ban on the use of marijuana, the drug-abuse-prevention group Educating Voices lauded insurance companies yesterday for not covering marijuana in their policies. The group, at a news conference on Capitol Hill, expressed optimism in what its research suggests is a growing trend of insurance companies denying coverage in cases in which medicinal marijuana is prescribed. The risk of liability should deter doctors from prescribing the drug, which has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, according to the group's report. Members of Congress spoke alongside the activists, vowing to crack down on those prescribing marijuana for medicinal use. "It is an abusive drug with no scientific evidence that it has any medical benefit," said Rep. Jo Ann Davis, Virginia Republican. She said those who use marijuana for medicine are "shortsighted and irresponsible." The insurance companies are taking steps to limit their liability in claims resulting from the use of non-FDA-approved drugs. Donald Fager, vice president of Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Co., the largest medical-malpractice insurer in the nation, said it excludes experimental drugs and those not commonly in use because "we are covering what is consistent with accepted standards of care." "We don't want to be on the hook for drugs that don't have FDA approval," he said. Ten states have passed laws legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, even though the Supreme Court recently ruled in a case against an Oakland, Calif., cannabis club that federal law trumps state law. Insurance companies with exclusions on non-FDA-approved drugs do not exempt doctors in states that have legalized the drug for medicinal purposes. The report from Educating Voices, based on research of case law, suggests doctors may be liable for injuries suffered by patients prescribed marijuana as well as third parties who are hurt by medicinal-marijuana users. "It is a very smart move on the part of the insurance companies, and we are glad the private sector is stepping up to the plate to clarify this issue," said Joyce Nalepka, president of the activist group Drug Free Kids: America's Challenge. Patients using marijuana say the drug is able to ease their suffering and diminish their pain unlike any drug the government has approved. "Those who use it find it very helpful for their multiple sclerosis and their chronic pain and the list goes on and on," said Dr. Mike Alcalay, medical director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, the organization challenged in the Supreme Court case. He said he isn't worried by the report, which didn't surprise him. He said other insurance companies cover the drug, including some that have agreed to cover the replacement of lost or stolen medicinal marijuana. The American Medical Association has not endorsed marijuana for medicinal use and has called for increased research. The association supports the drug's continued classification as a Schedule 1 drug, which, under the Controlled Substances Act, means it has a high risk for abuse and no current medicinal use. The debate over marijuana highlights the broader issue of voters legislating which medicines are safe, instead of the FDA. "Having voters decide what is available as medicine is a disaster," said Peter Bensinger, a director of Educating Voices and the former drug czar under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. He said state lawmakers are abandoning and destroying the 50-year-old FDA evaluation process. Dr. David Hadorn, a prescriber of medicinal marijuana and a consultant for a British pharmaceutical company, said the FDA process is "too much of a straitjacket and too confining" for marijuana. He said it should be treated as a natural health remedy and not need FDA approval. Source: Washington Times (DC)Author: Steve Sexton, The Washington TimesPublished: July 23, 2003 Copyright: 2003 News World Communications, Inc. Website: http://www.washtimes.com/Contact: letters washingtontimes.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:OCBChttp://www.rxcbc.org/Dr. David Hadornhttp://davidhadorn.com/Parts 1 & 2: Hinchey - Rohrabacher Amendmenthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16934.shtmlParts 3 & 4: Hinchey - Rohrabacher Amendmenthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16933.shtmlGrowing Outrage - Jacob Sullumhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16931.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #9 posted by ekim on July 24, 2003 at 19:29:14 PT just what the Dr. ordered man this is rich. i just hope that someone knows the name of the big contrubutor Sterling i think that has a large insurance company. the Docs. have been sayen how they are being raped by out of this world malpratice insurance fees. let the Drs ban together and force out these blood suckers. this is way over due. --- how does a bar owner get insured [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by escapegoat on July 24, 2003 at 07:13:41 PT This is exactly the approch used in Canada The insurance company for the doctors has cold feet. Unfortunatly, the courts here are impartial, and don't believe the lies put out by Walters, Barthwell, Napelka, this "Educating Voices" astroturf group, etc. or our own versions of them (Gwen LanDOLT of stealth Christian group REAL Women and the stealth Christian group Focus on the Family).Docs won't perscribe? Aww, that's too bad...the courts will say that we're going to have to keep it legalized for everyone. Congrats, prohibitionists, you have been outmanoevered. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by afterburner on July 24, 2003 at 07:12:45 PT: This is a good thing. Peter Bensinger, a director of Educating Voices and the former drug czar under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan...said state lawmakers are abandoning and destroying the 50-year-old FDA evaluation process. This is a good thing. The FDA process is fatally flawed and in the pockets of Big Pharma and Agri-business. Do you really trust the insurance industry, who have become cherry pickers in recent years? If the early ship captains had such insurance company practices to deal with, capitalism would never have made it off the starting block.Joyce Nalepka, president of the activist group Drug Free Kids: America's Challenge, and Rep. Jo Ann Davis, Virginia Republican, is it "irresponsible" to seek relief from seizures, to seek appetite when undergoing chemotherapy, to seek to get out of a wheel chair and walk on your own feet, to obtain clarity of mind from the brain fog induced by legal narcotic pain killers? This has nothing to do with children. You should be ashamed of yourself for encouraging more insurance company bullying of doctors, and attempting to deny effective medical relief to sick and dying adults.ego transcendence follows ego destruction, give me liberty or give me death. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by 13th step on July 24, 2003 at 06:41:14 PT ..I forgot to mention... (Darn early mornin'...well, early for me..)Jo Ann Davis also got contributions from the beer and wine wholesalers association...And I'll just leave that, at that... [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by 13th step on July 24, 2003 at 06:11:39 PT: Blathering... "It is an abusive drug with no scientific evidence that it has any medical benefit," said Rep. Jo Ann Davis, Virginia Republican. She said those who use marijuana for medicine are "shortsighted and irresponsible." Mmmhmmm...Maybe it's not as righteous and ordained by the defense industry, like something such as Oxycontin...Let's see who pays this woman...http://opengov1.media.mit.edu/EX/0000/000/400/095/Hmm, I guess murderers have the right to tell us what we can take into our bodies...And, yes, Jo Ann, you ARE a murderer.You take blood money, you are responsible for it too.TRW and Northup Grumman, Dyncorp, that list is huge, and something you should be quite ashamed of."Having voters decide what is available as medicine is a disaster," said Peter Bensinger, a director of Educating Voices and the former drug czar under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. He said state lawmakers are abandoning and destroying the 50-year-old FDA evaluation process. Man, my stomach hurts...So you can decide for me? For some reason, I just don't think you really have mine, or any other persons, best interests at heart.This is from: http://www.bensingerdupont.com/main/peterbensinger.htmlMR. PETER B. BENSINGER is President and Chief Executive Officer of Bensinger, DuPont & Associates (BDA), a privately owned professional services company that provides a wide range of consultation, training and employee assistance program services promoting a Drug–Free Workplace and employee health and safety, as well as intervention and treatment for compulsive gambling. BDA provides employee assistance, helpline, consulting, training and medical review office services to private industry, national organizations, and government agencies.DuPont, eh?also, farther down, it says heroin was reduced while he was head of the dea , yet, I seem to recall a lot of cocaine in the 70's & 80's, how'd all that increase? Oh, 'cos his organization, along with the majority of the Reagan administration, were importing cocaine & flooding the ghettos with it...Bah...At least it did end with a good up note.... [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by CorvallisEric on July 24, 2003 at 03:19:12 PT Doctors and lawyers I think doctors, like all professionals, are afraid that everything they say and do (or fail to say and do) in their official capacity, can be cause for being sued. If I were a lawyer, which I am not, maybe I could tell you how justified their fear is. My guess is that courts could consider recommendations to be equivalent to prescriptions as far as liability goes. Furthermore, in the case of FDA-approved meds, a lot of the potential liability is shifted from the doctor to the manufacturer, something you obviously can't do with cannabis.In Canada, Health Minister Anne McClellan is obviously trying to wreck her own distribution system by involving doctors, thereby creating an extra layer of liability risk for them.Considering all this (and other factors), it's understandable that:1 - A small number of doctors grant a large percentage of all recommendations.2 - Insurance companies want to avoid covering doctors' recommendations.It's unfortunate that these actions are misinterpreted as being due to real medical concerns, when they are really due mostly to FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) in an over-litigious society. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Dan B on July 23, 2003 at 23:53:24 PT Big Deal "Insurance companies are leaving doctors who prescribe marijuana to patients personally liable in malpractice cases involving their use of the drug, according to a report released yesterday."The above is a bald-faced lie. Why? Because nowhere in the United States are doctors "prescribing" marijuana. In some states they are allowed to recommend it, but nowhere are they prescribing it. There is a huge difference since prescribing is a DEA approved process, while recommending is merely constitutionally protected free speech that has no binding effect on the doctor. Let's talk about this word "recommend." If, as a teacher, I recommend that a student study comma rules and apply that study to his or her writing, and he or she does not do so, I am not responsible for the outcome of that student's refusal to follow my recommendation. If I also recommend that a student should work with a more knowledgeable classmate, he or she follows the recommendation, and the arrangement turns out to be a bust, I am still not responsible for the fact that the student followed the recommendation. (Mind you, I have been a teacher of college students--supposedly grown adults with minds of their own). The recommendation was mine, but ultimately it is up to the student to decide for him or herself what is appropriate for his or her education.The same is true for a doctor's recommendation. That is, if a doctor recommends that a patient uses marijuana to combat the symptoms associated with, say, cancer chemotherapy and the patient decides to not follow that recommendation, it is the patient's fault if that decision results in a more harsh reaction to said chemotherapy treatment. If the patient does follow the doctor's recommendation and is somehow unsatisfied with the results, the responsibility still lies with the patient. It is a recommendation, not an order. The doctor can give advice based on his or her experience and best judgement when it comes to marijuana, but ultimately the responsibility for following that advice lies with the patient. This is especially true because marijuana is currently illegal, even for medical purposes, at the federal level, so any recommendation to use cannabis comes with its own built-in "warning" straight from the feds (right or wrong, these are the facts).Of course, all of this is a ridiculous argument because patients will be far more likely to be adversely affected by not following a doctor's recommendation to use cannabis than by following such a recommendation. The fallback measure--the measure used to cover the doctor's backside--should be to recommend cannabis whenever it seems appropriate so that patients cannot later come back and say that the doctor did not do everything s/he could to alleviate suffering.In other words, the upshot of this article is no big deal.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by freedom fighter on July 23, 2003 at 23:30:05 PT All that whipping and beating and shooting that ppppppooooooooorrrrrr horse...It is no longer a she or a he... toooooooo old to take another step.....It's poor eyes beggin...pls put me out... Prohibition of cannabis never work and never will..I know you tried..your very best...Is it time to rest in peace my friend?pazff [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on July 23, 2003 at 23:19:30 PT What Dr. David Hadorn Said is Correct I Believe! He said: Dr. David Hadorn, a prescriber of medicinal marijuana and a consultant for a British pharmaceutical company, said the FDA process is "too much of a straitjacket and too confining" for marijuana. He said it should be treated as a natural health remedy and not need FDA approval. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment