South Dakota Senate Bill SB23

South Dakota 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/11/22
• Refer: 1/11/22
• Report Pass: 1/19/22
• Engrossed: 1/25/22
• Refer: 2/15/22
• Report Pass: 2/24/22
• Enrolled: 2/25/22
• Passed: 3/9/22

Caption

Revise the definition of bona fide practitioner-patient relationship.

Impact

The proposed amendments under SB23 have the potential to significantly alter the framework within which medical cannabis is prescribed in the state. By enforcing stricter definitions and procedures for establishing a practitioner-patient relationship, the bill seeks to foster a more responsible and carefully monitored medical cannabis environment. This is particularly relevant as cannabis legislation continues to evolve, reflecting broader social attitudes toward its medicinal use. The Department of Health would likely have an increased role in overseeing compliance with the new standards set forth under this bill.

Summary

Senate Bill 23 seeks to revise the definition of a bona fide practitioner-patient relationship specifically concerning the medical use of cannabis in South Dakota. It aims to ensure that the relationship extends beyond just providing written certification for cannabis use, mandating that practitioners engage in a detailed assessment of a patient’s medical condition and history. This change is crucial for maintaining a standard of care in which patients receive continued follow-up and comprehensive treatment rather than a cursory evaluation aimed solely at facilitating cannabis prescriptions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB23 appears to reflect a cautious optimism, particularly among healthcare professionals who advocate for patient welfare and evidence-based practices. Supporters argue that these revisions enhance the integrity of medical cannabis prescriptions and ultimately better serve patients. However, there may also be concerns from those who fear that more stringent regulations could hinder access to necessary treatments for those in need of medical cannabis.

Contention

While SB23 largely received support during discussions, it is likely to face scrutiny regarding its potential impact on patient access. Critics may argue that increased regulatory requirements could make it more difficult for patients to obtain the certifications needed for medical cannabis use. Additionally, some advocates for cannabis reform might express skepticism about whether these changes might inadvertently create barriers rather than facilitate patient care. The ongoing conversations regarding cannabis legislation will likely continue to emphasize the balance between regulation and patient access.