Is Medical Cannabis Evidence-Based Medicine? Concerns Based on Qualifying Conditions and the National Academy of Sciences Report ================================================================================================================================ * Elena L. Stains * Amy L. Kennalley * Alexander S. Bachir * Chadd K. Kraus * Brian J. Piper ## Abstract This study aims to examine the coherence of state-level qualifying conditions (QCs) for medical cannabis (MC) with the evidence-based conclusions of the 2017 National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report. Data was collected for the QCs from 38 states where MC was legal in 2023 and compared to the QC data from 31 states where MC was legal in 2017. Each condition was divided into a NAS-established category based on the level of evidence supporting their effectiveness. The findings revealed wide variation in the number of QCs between states, with only an average of 8.4% of QCs in each state generally satisfying the substantial evidence category. Over three fourths of states included QCs with limited evidence of ineffectiveness (78.9%) or no/insufficient evidence (76.3%). Additionally, four fifths (81.6%) of states included QCs not covered in the NAS report. Only a few states appeared to have updated their QCs after the NAS report was released. This investigation highlights a large discrepancy between the state-level recommendations for MC and the supporting data. ## Introduction Almost three-quarters (74%) of states, representing 73% of the United States (US) population, have legislation or regulation for medical cannabis (MC) and 2.5% of Americans reported using cannabis for medical needs in 2019-2020.1 The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) published a report in 2017 on the evidence, or lack thereof, of the therapeutic effects of cannabis for over twenty conditions.2 Our objective was to compare each state’s current and past qualifying conditions (QCs) for MC with the NAS report’s findings to assess gaps in evidence-based recommendations made for cannabis use. ## Methods We collected the QCs of each of the 38 states (including Washington, D.C.) where MC was legal in 20233. We then used an internet archive tool to identify the QCs for the 31 states where MC was legal in 2017,4 the year the NAS report was published. Conditions were divided into NAS-established categories: substantial evidence of effectiveness (e.g. chronic pain), moderate or limited evidence of effectiveness (e.g. PTSD), limited evidence of ineffectiveness (e.g. glaucoma), and no/insufficient evidence to support or refute effectiveness (e.g. epilepsy) (Supplemental Table 1A). QCs that only partially fit into the NAS-established categories, when taken exactly as written, were categorized as “partial” (Supplemental Table 1B). View this table: [Supplemental Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/10/2023.05.01.23289286/T1) Supplemental Table 1. Categories of evidence established by the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) report (a). Common state qualifying conditions that were deemed “partial” due to broad wording, compared with evidence found by NAS (b). ## Results The number of QCs for medical cannabis in 2023 varied widely between states (mean = 16.4), with South Dakota having the fewest (5) and Illinois the most (52) (Supplemental Figure 1). Twelve states included with their list of QCs the ability of physicians to recommend MC at their discretion–while three (Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Oklahoma) left the decision entirely up to the physician, no QCs. ![Supplemental Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/10/2023.05.01.23289286/F2.medium.gif) [Supplemental Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/10/2023.05.01.23289286/F2) Supplemental Figure 1. Number of approved Qualifying Conditions (QC) per state in 2023. Washington, D.C., Oklahoma, and Virginia were not displayed due to lack of QC list. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/05/10/2023.05.01.23289286/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/10/2023.05.01.23289286/F1) Figure 1. Percent of each state’s QCs that have substantial evidence of effectiveness (a) and limited evidence of ineffectiveness (b) according to the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS).2 Alabama’s program was not yet in effect as of 4/27/2023. Most (89.5%) of states had at least one QC with substantial evidence. On average, only 8.4% of a state’s QCs met this standard (Figure 1A). In contrast, 78.9% of states listed one or more QCs with limited evidence of *ineffectiveness* (Figure 1B). Three-quarters *(*76.3%) of states had at least one QC with no/insufficient evidence to support or refute effectiveness, and 36.8% of states had three or more of such conditions. Four-fifths (81.6%) of states had at least one QC that was not in the NAS report. On average, 19.6% of a state’s QCs were not included in the NAS report, and 40.2% of QCs were partial. There was only partial evidence that states changed their QCs to establish consistency following publication of the NAS report. Nineteen of 31 states added one or more QCs since 2017. Following these additions, 32.3% of states listed a higher percentage of QCs with substantial evidence in 2023 than in 2017, but another 32.3% listed a lower percentage. However, half (51.6%) had a lower percentage of ineffective QCs by 2023, and only 9.7% had a higher percentage. Another 53.3% also had a lower percentage of QCs that were partial. ## Discussion Despite the 2017 NAS report, the vast majority of QCs that states use to qualify patients for medical cannabis recommendation do not align with evidence. Most states have MC use for QCs that have not been well-studied–ALS symptoms, Parkinson’s, opioid dependence—or are known to some degree to be ineffective–dementia symptoms and depression. When comparing QCs from 2017 (the time of publication of the NAS report2), to the present, states have incompletely updated their recommendations to align with this evidence. It is possible that states are using other information to guide their QCs,5 including voter initiatives. Overall, these data show a large gap between state-level recommendations for medical cannabis and the quality evidence to support them. ## Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. ## Acknowledgements The work was completed with software from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [T32-ES007060-31A1]; BJP is supported by the Health Resources Services Administration [D34HP31025]. ## Footnotes * **Ethics:** This report was approved by the IRB of Geisinger as exempt. * Added funding statement. ## Abbreviations MC : medical cannabis NAS : National Academy of Sciences QC : Qualifying Conditions US : United States * Received May 1, 2023. * Revision received May 9, 2023. * Accepted May 10, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1.Rhee TG, Rosenheck RA. Increasing use of cannabis for medical purposes among US residents, 2013-2020. Am J Prev Med 2023; S0749–3797(23)00132-0. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2023.03.005 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.amepre.2023.03.005&link_type=DOI) 2. 2.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: the current state of evidence and recommendations for research. The National Academies Press.2017. [https://doi.org/10.17226/24625](https://doi.org/10.17226/24625). 3. 3.Medical marijuana laws. NORML. [https://norml.org/laws/medical-laws/](https://norml.org/laws/medical-laws/). Published February 2, 2023. Accessed March 30, 2023. 4. 4.Internet archive: digital library of free & borrowable books, movies, music & wayback machine. [https://archive.org/](https://archive.org/). Accessed March 30, 2023. 5. 5.Schlag AK, Zafar RR, Lynskey MT, Athanasiou-Fragkouli A, Phillips LD, Nutt DJ. The value of real world evidence: the case of medical cannabis. Front Psychiatry. 2022; 13:1027159. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1027159. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1027159&link_type=DOI)