Public Comments

I’d like to request WV consider allowing edibles in dispensary’s. It makes no sense to allow cannabis for medical purposes but force you to smoke the carcinogens, potentially harming your lungs and cause cancer.

1. Enhance Patient Accessibility and Comfort Many patients suffer from respiratory conditions, compromised immune systems, or other medical issues that make inhalation unsuitable. Edibles provide a smoke-free and vapor-free option that aligns with broader public health objectives.
2. Provide Longer-Lasting Symptom Relief Edible cannabis products offer extended therapeutic effects compared to inhaled forms, which may benefit patients managing chronic pain, neurological disorders, cancer-related symptoms, and other qualifying conditions.
3. Promote Safe and Regulated Access Authorizing edibles within the state’s regulated dispensary system ensures product safety, standardized dosing, laboratory testing, child-resistant packaging, and clear labeling requirements. Regulation is preferable to forcing patients to seek alternatives outside the legal framework.
4. Align West Virginia with Other Medical Cannabis States A majority of medical cannabis programs nationwide permit edible products under strict regulatory oversight. Updating West Virginia’s policy would maintain consistency with evolving medical standards and patient-centered care practices.

• Strict THC concentration limits per serving and per package
• Mandatory child-resistant and tamper-evident packaging
• Clear labeling regarding dosage, delayed onset effects, and safety warnings
• Restrictions on marketing that could appeal to minors

In an emergency, patients can’t choose an ambulance service from a provider directory when calling 911.

Similarly, EMS must provide care without knowing the patient’s insurance status.

Nearly 60% of ambulance transports are out-of-network, according to data from Fair Health.

EMS agencies face significant challenges due to insurers reimbursing out-of-network ambulance services at rates that are unreasonably low, directly paying patients, or excessively delaying payments.

These practices are used to coerce EMS providers into unfavorable contracts jeopardizing their ability to deliver essential services.

When insurance companies fail to treat EMS agencies fairly, the financial shortfall must be made up by taxpayers or results in a reduction of vital services.

Therefore, implementing fair insurance practices is crucial for ensuring continued access to emergency medical care and minimizing the burden on taxpayers.

SB 645 would make a meaningful difference for EMS and Patients by:

• Prohibiting patients from being balance billed for ambulance services.
• Requiring EMS be paid a fair minimum rate by insurance for services.
• Requiring insurance companies to send payments directly to EMS agencies and ensuring payment for clean claims within 30 days.

This bill will help stabilize EMS funding, strengthen emergency care, and support the communities served by these first responders.

Why 400%?

The most frequently asked question about SB 645 has a straightforward answer: 400% of Medicare is based on cost reporting data collected through the Medicare Ground Ambulance Data Collection System. According to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the average cost per ambulance transport is $2,673, and the median is $1,340. In contrast, Medicare pays an average of only $328.89. Even at four times the average Medicare payment, insurance companies are still reimbursing less than the actual median and mean costs of care.

The two leading insurance industry opponents of this bill have a history of reimbursing EMS providers at rates lower than Medicare, which makes the situation worse. They might argue that health insurance shouldn't be required to fund EMS, but as shown by the cost data, all we are asking is for them to come closer to covering cost of the care they promise to their policyholders.

EMS services need funding to remain available; without proper payment, the availability of 911 response could decline. The payment provisions in this bill present a policy decision: should insurance companies covering ambulance services contribute a greater amount toward the cost of care, or should the financial burden shift to all taxpayers?

• Improves Access — FPA creates greater access to care, especially in underserved urban and rural areas. States with FPA are more likely to have NPs working in rural and underserved areas and NP practices than states with more restrictive licensure models.
• Streamlines Care and Makes Care Delivery More Efficient — FPA provides patients with full and direct access to NPs' services at the point of care. FPA removes delays in care that are created when dated regulations require an NP be part of an unnecessary regulatory-mandated contract with a physician as a condition of practicing their profession.
• Decreases Costs — FPA avoids duplication of services and billing costs associated with outdated physician oversight of NP practice. FPA reduces unnecessary repetition of orders, office visits and care services.
• Protects Patient Choice — FPA allows patients to see the health care provider of their choice. FPA removes anti-competitive licensing restrictions that interfere with patient-centered health care

Most people I know that only use edible thc are some older folks but, I’m sure a few people don’t smoke do to personal reasons and it would be nice to have more options. Personally I don’t use it much because a 10mg dose isn’t enough for anyone with a tolerance and I’d rather eat a gummy that says 100mg than eating a drop of rso or another form of thc concentrate and hoping it’s the right dose for myself. It would also be cool to make snacks with a pretty small dose, small enough to keep it a fair price so people can just buy them in larger quantities if they don’t like the taste. I’d rather do that than take a capsule anyway. Personally really hope we get edibles might as well make it recreational while you’re at it if we’re being honest, and I promise I’ll still renew the medcard even if it does get recreational.

I support the gummies.

Medical cannabis is a safe way to help those in pain cannabis gummies are safe

Please consider the edible option for medical marijuana so that patient’s can reap the benefits of their pain management, without having to inhale smoke. Thank you.

We need to pass this bill it would be convenient to the patient who are unable to do it themselves

Yes edibles should be allowed as well as pre rolls!

1. We would really like this bill to pass . Having edibles would really help le

Allow edibles! Smoking sucks!

1. Please pass the hb5260 for my wife and others like her in need of an easier way to take the medicine she needs

1. Please pass the hb5260
2. Edabile is the best way for me to take my medication
3. Smoking is very hard on my breathing abilities
4. I need this and am certainly not the only one.

You can go to the store and buy all the alcohol your heart desires but I can't eat Marijuana for it's medicinal properties This blows my mind along with tons of other Americans/West Virginians catch our state up with everybody else we're always the last to do something that's beneficial for our state. BAN ALCOHOL SAVE MILLIONS OF LIVES!!!

I am proud to support this petition to legalize edible medical marijuana in West Virginia. Patients deserve safe, regulated options for managing chronic pain, PTSD, epilepsy, cancer-related symptoms, and other serious medical conditions. Not everyone can or wants to smoke or vape, and edible forms provide a longer-lasting, smoke-free alternative that can be easier on the lungs and more discreet.

Legalizing edibles would expand access for patients who are already legally approved for medical cannabis but need alternative delivery methods that better fit their health needs. With proper regulation, labeling, and dosing standards, edible medical marijuana can be provided safely and responsibly.

West Virginia families deserve compassionate healthcare options. This is about improving quality of life, respecting doctor–patient decisions, and giving patients access to the full range of medical treatments available in many other states. I urge lawmakers to support this important step forward.