Healthcare professionals are increasingly advocating for insurance coverage of medical cannabis, citing its potential to alleviate chronic pain and reduce reliance on more dangerous medications. Mikhail Kogan, an associate professor of medicine and chief medical officer at the Center for Integrative Medicine at George Washington University, argues that patients are often forced to choose between essential living expenses and out-of-pocket costs for cannabis, as insurance companies typically do not cover it.
Chronic pain and conditions such as dementia are significant contributors to healthcare expenses, consuming a large portion of Medicare and Medicaid budgets. Kogan notes that cannabis could serve as a safer alternative to opioids and benzodiazepines, with studies indicating that 30 to 50% of patients reduce their opioid consumption when substituting with cannabis. Unlike opioids, cannabis has no recorded overdose deaths, suggesting it could save approximately 50,000 lives annually.
Research Supports Medical Cannabis as a Viable Treatment
Research from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine in 2017 classified cannabis as an evidence-based treatment for chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, and chemotherapy-related nausea. Since then, international examples from countries like Israel and Canada have further demonstrated the benefits and cost savings associated with medical cannabis.
Patient-reported outcomes have also emerged as valuable data, capturing improvements in daily functioning, sleep quality, mood, and overall quality of life—elements often overlooked in clinical trials. These findings underscore the need for a shift in policy to allow broader insurance coverage for medical cannabis.
Despite the growing body of evidence, federal agencies face challenges. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cannot approve cannabis due to the variability of products, which in turn prevents insurers from covering them. Consequently, patients are left navigating a landscape where they often rely on inadequately trained dispensary staff and face trial-and-error approaches to treatment.
Financial Implications of Coverage
Current models suggest that integrating medical cannabis into insurance coverage could lead to significant cost savings. For example, hospice programs receive a per-diem payment from Medicare to cover all palliative needs, while integrative pain programs, such as those at the University of Vermont, are often eligible for insurance reimbursement and have shown substantial savings.
Opponents of cannabis coverage often raise concerns about safety and potential for abuse. However, Kogan argues that many of these claims are based on recreational use rather than the carefully dosed medical applications. While cannabis may not be suitable for everyone, particularly adolescents, its benefits for adults, especially older populations, often outweigh associated risks.
From a financial perspective, covering medical cannabis could reduce costs associated with emergency room visits, imaging, and drug interactions that stem from chronic pain and dementia. Insurers currently bear the financial burden of these conditions, making coverage of cannabis a practical consideration. Nearly 75% of U.S. adults reside in states with legal cannabis access, reinforcing the public’s readiness for this shift.
Ultimately, the conversation surrounding insurance coverage for medical cannabis is not just one of logic but also of ethics and necessity. Kogan emphasizes that healthcare providers cannot overlook treatments that patients are already benefiting from. The lack of political will to enact these changes must be addressed to ensure patients have access to safe and effective treatment options.
