Pennsylvania got into the medical marijuana business late enough to learn from the most egregious mistakes nearly two dozen other states made rolling out their programs.
Still, the tradeoffs inherent to any tough decision were on display this week after the Department of Health issued the first permits to grow and process the plant.
Advocates and experts praised the department for issuing the permits just 90 days after applications were due and going to great lengths to prevent applicants from influencing a still-anonymous review board.
But some of the businesses whose applications were rejected — including at least three in the Lehigh Valley — expressed bewilderment and frustration over how the tight-lipped department scored the applications.
“There are some surprising things in there,” said developer Lou Pektor, who had hoped to open an affiliate of Colorado’s Biogreen Farms LLC in Williams Township. “We’re seeing some categories that we think are totally misscored, let’s put it that way.”
Pektor and others are mulling what feedback they got from the state — and hoping the state will respond to their feedback going forward.
The state allocated two of the 12 first-round permits to applicants in the 10-county northeast region. The Lehigh Valley’s top scorer was TruVo Health Care, which at 693 points was the eighth-best in the region and 56 points fewer than the second-place permit recipient, Pennsylvania Medical Solutions LLC of Scranton. It was 60 points behind the top regional scorer, Standard Farms LLC of White Haven, Luzerne County.
TruVo had hoped to earn both grower/processor and dispensary permits so it could manufacture and distribute a consistent product in either capsule or vaporizable form that doctors feel comfortable prescribing to patients in severe pain, said Bruce Nicholson, chief medical officer.
Nicholson, who also leads Lehigh Valley Health Network’s pain management division, believes his company might have received a permit to grow pharmaceutical-grade marijuana in a Lynn Township facility had it scored closer to its expectations on two components: intended community impact and diversity efforts.
Together, those criteria accounted for 20 percent of the overall grade.
Applicants were asked to “provide a summary of how the applicant intends to have a positive impact on the community” hosting the grower/processor operation. Given that the department offered no other details on how it was defining “positive community impact,” Nicholson was “left scratching my head” on how exactly the review board quantified responses. TruVo received less than half of the total possible points for its response.
The department was more transparent about what it was looking for in the the diversity efforts section of the application — among other things, it asked businesses to include a “workforce utilization report” mentioning the number of women, veterans, service-disabled veterans and racial minorities employed.
Nicholson questioned how the review board scored the response and what stopped applicants from misrepresenting the long-term role of women, veterans and racial minorities.
Becky Dansky, legislative counsel with the Marijuana Policy Project, a national pro-legalization group, applauded the emphasis on community relations and diversity. But she said the organization encouraged the Department of Health to weigh the community relations and diversity effort components more heavily in the permit renewal process — once the department was able to check out businesses’ claims.
Applicants have only until the end of this month to appeal. TruVo was waiting to see if it receives one of 27 first-round dispensary permits next week. If it does, it will explore whether any of the grower/processor permit recipients are interested in taking a similar, pharmacological approach to manufacturing.
“Our partners are all medical-based individuals, and we still believe very strongly that creating a pharmaceutical-grade product available in a form that clinicians would be able to prescribe confidently would have a great community impact,” Nicholson said.
Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana program, signed into law in April 2016, allows the Department of Health to permit 25 grower/processors across the state. The department mailed letters with feedback to applicants Tuesday, and the first-round rejects can apply for one of the next 13 permits at a to-be-determined date.
Dansky speculated the state probably will wait until the first growing operations are up and running before starting the second round. Paying Pennsylvania’s higher-than-average $10,000 application fee could discourage less-wealthy grower/processor candidates.
She noted that many of the initial permits went to large companies that already are operating in other states.
But Dansky and Daniel Clearfield, a Harrisburg attorney who advised numerous grower/processor permit applicants, commended the state for sticking to its 90-day timeline and protecting the anonymity of the review board. Health Department officials declined to reveal any information about the decision-makers, but spokeswoman April Hutcheson confirmed that each person signed an affidavit ensuring he or she had no conflicts of interest.
“They did almost everything you could imagine to make sure the evaluation was done on the up-and-up,” said Clearfield, who represented one permit recipient. “You can disagree about the criteria used, but the department made pretty clear what was going to be important.”
Dave Davis, founder of CPG Biotics in Bethlehem, had hoped to open a facility in Lackawanna County, but an application score of 646 didn’t cut it.
He said his attorneys were still reviewing the application scorecards but had noted some discrepancies. One applicant (which didn’t receive a permit) seemingly earned extra credit in two categories.
“Quite frankly, it’s really hard to decipher the scoring,” he said.
awagaman@mcall.com
Twitter @andrewwagaman
610-820-6764
MEDICAL MARIJUANA
Local grower/processor application scores
* TruVo Health Care: 693.07
* CPG Biotics: 648.08
* BioGreen Farms: 600.78
* Best application score, region: 753.27
* Best application score, statewide: 790.44
*Best possible score: 1,000
