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.

• Insert A: Amend §9-5-15 — Create the Expert Panel on Rare Diseases and Personalized Medicine within the Medicaid drug utilization review program
• Insert B: Amend §16-22-3 — Give the Bureau for Public Health access to the panel for specified newborn screening decisions
• Insert C: Amend §33-2-10 — Require the Insurance Commissioner to seek panel input before finalizing rules materially affecting rare disease access
• Insert D: Transition provision — Dissolve the existing RDAC, transfer records, repeal §16-5CC

• 16-22-3 — Newborn Screening Insertion. In subsection (d), after the existing language directing the Bureau for Public Health to propose legislative rules, add a new subsection (e):

I am opposed to this bill. These so-called low paying jobs are not low paying at all.

Legislation that limits pathways for review, increases barriers, or discourages rehabilitation sends a damaging message — that no matter how much someone works to change, there will be no recognition of that effort. This not only undermines personal accountability, but removes incentives for positive institutional behavior and participation in programming that has been shown to reduce recidivism and improve public safety.

• 5B-12-10 of HB 4001, as currently drafted, would prohibit any person or organization from using the name “TEAM-WV” or words of similar meaning without the written consent of the newly created corporation. As written, this provision could require our long-established organization to seek permission from a newly created entity in order to continue using the name and identity under which we have operated for nearly four decades.

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?

• A structured review of child development studies found that higher screen use in early childhood is associated with poorer sleep, reduced physical activity, attention difficulties, and challenges in emotional and social functioning.  
• Research specific to preschoolers shows that routine use of devices to soothe or distract children can reduce self-regulation and is linked to lower inhibition and greater emotional lability.  

• Pediatric guidelines (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics) recommend no screen time under age 2 and no more than ~1 hour/day for ages 2–5, because exceeding these is associated with developmental delays and negative outcomes.  

• A pediatric behavioral study found that children with ≥2 hours/day of screen time showed more behavioral problems and ADHD-like symptoms, and mechanisms like excessive dopamine release from screen engagement make devices harder to disengage from (a marker of addictive patterns).