On January 5, 2018, the United States Department of Health and Human Services released for public comment a draft Trusted Exchange Framework, which seeks to accomplish interoperability with respect to patients’ Electronic Health Information (“EHI”) through the creation of Health Information Networks (“HINs”). The 21st Century Cures Act, which Congress enacted in 2016, has the goal of creating a trusted exchange focusing on streamlining patient EHI and establishing a network designed to “achieve a system where individuals are at the center of their care and where providers have the ability to securely access and use health information from different sources.” The Trusted Exchange Framework is the federal government’s attempt to achieve that goal.

The draft Trusted Exchange Framework is broken down into two parts:

Part A—Principles for Trusted Exchange

Part B—Minimum Required Terms and Conditions for Trusted Exchange

Part A sets forth and relies on six principles:

(1) Standardization (adherence to industry standards and best practices);

(2) Transparency (an open free flowing exchange);

(3) Cooperation and Non-Discrimination (collaboration from all stakeholders);

(4) Privacy, Security, and Patient Safety (data protection and integrity);

(5) Access (conveniently obtain EHI); and

(6) Data-driven Accountability (streamlined process for a cohort of patients to help lower cost of care).

These principles are guidelines qualified HINs need to follow to help build a trusting relationship between participants and patients and, without adherence to this foundation, a new modernized system cannot properly flourish.

Part B sets forth the minimum required terms and conditions participants must adopt and follow to ensure a trusted exchange of EHI. This is accomplished through a trusted exchange framework and common agreement (“TEFCA”). The TEFCA seeks to ensure, among other things, that there is “[c]ommon authentication processes of trusted health information network participants, [a] common set of rules for trusted exchange, and [a] minimum core of organizational and operational policies to enable the exchange of EHI among networks.” A sample TEFCA can be found in the draft Trusted Exchange Framework.

In sum, it is clear that the federal government is finally taking a serious look at how our healthcare system can become more efficient and modernized in our ever-changing society. Putting into place a final Trusted Exchange Framework, with input from all stakeholders, is a great step towards reaching that goal.

The deadline for public comment is February 18, 2018.

While marijuana is legal for medical and, in some instances recreational, use under the laws of 29 states plus the District of Columbia, under federal law it remains illegal. Yet, for the last several years, this lingering federal illegality has not seemed to chill entry into the industry – thanks in large part to the Cole Memorandum. On the heels of the January 4 rescission of the Cole Memorandum, as well as two additional memos related to marijuana enforcement policy, all of that might change.

A federal statute, the Controlled Substances Act (the “CSA”) makes it illegal to manufacture, distribute or dispense marijuana for any purpose. Under the CSA, marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug, meaning that under federal law marijuana is believed to have no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Moreover, the Schedule 1 classification extends to all elements of the cannabis plant, including extracts and derivatives thereof. No exceptions exist in the CSA for medicinal use or use in states where marijuana has been legalized.

However, in 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued the Cole Memorandum, which states that its general policy is not to interfere with the medicinal use of marijuana under state law. The Memorandum set forth certain principles underpinning DOJ enforcement of the CSA with respect to marijuana. Although the DOJ said it would continue to prosecute persons or organizations whose conduct interferes with any one or more of these principles, regardless of state law, the memorandum went on to declare that where state law effectively mitigates the concerns of the DOJ, the Department will refrain from prosecution.

Since the change in administration in 2017, there has been an increasing sensitivity to a shift in DOJ policy on enforcing the CSA against “legalized” marijuana businesses. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has publicly discussed his harsh stance on marijuana and the potential for increasing federal enforcement of the federal law regarding marijuana – despite what state law provides. In fact, in May 2017 he sent a letter to certain political leaders advising of his desire to do so.

Sessions has now gone a step further and rescinded the Cole Memorandum, leaving federal prosecutors free to determine to what extent they will enforce the CSA against state-legalized marijuana businesses. A copy of the release can be found here and a copy of the memorandum can be found here.

While likelihood of prosecution will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction based upon the position of the particular U.S. Attorney in charge of the district, it is clear that the rescission will have a broader impact than just the potential of prosecution of those involved in the industry. As discussed in our November 27, 2017 post, Cannabis Business? The Impact of Federal Law Might reach Further than You Think, the CSA and federal illegality of marijuana has a far-reaching impact on those setting up or running marijuana businesses that are legal under state law. It is anticipated that the rescission of the Cole Memorandum will, among other things, further impair the ability of those in the marijuana business to obtain leases, financing, and perhaps even legal assistance.

State and federal representatives of several states have already publicized their positions on the January 4 memorandum, with many being unfavorable. It would not be surprising if political leaders mobilized quickly to protect the cannabis industry, which has already injected over $20 billion into the U.S. economy and is expected to increase that number to about $70 billion by 2021. In the short term, those in the industry can continue to find some comfort in the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment to the federal budget, which continues in effect until January 19 and maintains that federal funds cannot be used to prevent states from “implementing their own state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.” In the meantime, we will all be waiting with baited breath to see the responses of state and federal leaders.

Last week, in United States v. Scully, the Second Circuit vacated the conviction of a distributor of pharmaceutical products on misbranding charges due to evidentiary issues surrounding his advice-of-counsel defense at trial.

The Rise and Fall of Pharmalogical

William Scully and Rodi Lameh founded Pharmalogical, Inc,, planning to acquire pharmaceutical products from manufacturers and sell them to doctors, hospitals and clinics. Eventually, Scully set the company on the course of “parallel importing,” importing foreign versions of FDA-approved products into the United States from European distributors. The company purchased these drugs at reduced prices and sold them to customers in the United States at under-market prices. The product labels for the products did not contain a National Drug Code, so Scully and Lameh obtained an attorney opinion that Pharmalogical had no reason to believe it was in violation of any statute or regulation.  This initially satisfied purchasers that Pharmalogical was authorized to sell.  Later, when Pharmalogical was advised by the FDA that foreign-made versions of FDA-approved drugs were considered unapproved, it obtained a second legal opinion that the importation of the product would not violate United States criminal laws. After the FDA executed warrants to search Pharmalogical’s offices, Scully and Lameh each retained individual lawyers, and Pharmalogical ceased selling products.

Scully and Lameh were indicted for using Pharmalogical to import foreign versions of prescription drugs and medical devices for use in the United States. Lameh pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute misbranded drugs and cooperated with the government. Scully went to trial.

At trial, Scully introduced an advice-of-counsel defense, contending that he relied in good faith on the advice of attorneys concerning the legality of his conduct. Scully called the attorney who provided opinions to Pharmalogical on the legality of the sales.  After the government effectively undermined the defense based on that testimony, Scully sought to testify himself that his individual attorney advised him the business was legal, rather than calling the second attorney to testify.  EDNY Judge Arthur Spatt ruled that such testimony, while not hearsay as it went to state of mind, was inadmissible under the balancing inquiry of FRE 403, particularly where the second attorney was available to testify.  The jury ultimately found Scully guilty. On appeal, Scully challenged the exclusion of evidence of his attorney’s legal advice and the jury instructions on the advice-of-counsel defense.

Evidence of Legal Advice

The Second Circuit held that the district court erred in balancing the probative value and prejudicial effect of the evidence of Scully’s testimony as to his individual attorney’s legal advice under FRE 403. The statement was not hearsay as it was offered to prove the defendant’s state of mind and not for its truth. Moreover, the Second Circuit held that it was not appropriate to require Scully to call his attorney as a witness, as the government had ample means to challenge Scully’s testimony, including by cross-examining Scully or by calling the attorney as a rebuttal witness. The Court determined that Scully was not legally required to call his attorney, but was competent to testify about his own state of mind, and the question of his credibility should have been up to the jury. Scully was therefore entitled to a new trial.

Advice-Of-Counsel Jury Instruction

While Scully waived arguments concerning the jury instruction on advice-of-counsel, the Second Circuit provided guidance on the jury instruction as the case was being remanded for a new trial.

The Circuit noted that, in a fraud case, the advice-of-counsel defense is not an affirmative defense, but is instead evidence that, if believed, can raise a reasonable doubt on whether the government has proved the required element of the offense that the defendant had an “unlawful intent.” The jury instruction must therefore advise the jury that the government at all times bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the state of mind required for conviction. The district court should therefore not instruct the jury that the defendant “has the burden” of establishing the defense or must “satisfy” the elements of the defense. Instead, the Court referenced model jury instructions from Judge Leonard Sand and the Seventh Circuit, demonstrating that the defendant need not establish good faith, but that the government must carry its burden of proof to establish the intent element of the crime.

As we previously discussed in Medical Marijuana 103: Patient and Practitioner Regulations in New York State, practitioners in New York must be registered with the New York State Department of Health (“DOH”) in order to certify patients for medical marijuana use. The DOH maintains a list of registered practitioners on its website, however such list is woefully incomplete. As of the date of this writing there are over 1,360 providers statewide that are registered to certify patients for medical marijuana, but only 32 percent are included on the public list maintained by the DOH.

On Wednesday, November 28, 2017, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill which requires the the DOH to list on its website all practitioners who are certified to recommend medical marijuana to patients.

Sen. Diane Savino (D-Staten Island), the primary sponsor of the bill, stated that one of the biggest complaints from patients in the medical marijuana program was finding a registered doctor.

“People complained that it was difficult to find a doctor near them so they could  be certified as a patient. Because the Department of Health kept the list proprietary, it made it that much harder for patients,” said Senator Savino.

A vote on the bill was held in June 2017, with 62 senators voting in favor of the bill and only 1 senator opposing it. The bill requires that the name, contact information, and other information relating to practitioners registered with the DOH to certify patients for medical marijuana be public information and that the information be maintained on the DOH’s website in searchable form. There is an exception, however – practitioners may still opt-out if they do not wish for their information to be public by informing the DOH in writing. The new requirements will be implemented sixty (60) days after the bill was signed into law by Governor Cuomo.

Sen. Savino was also the main proponent of the bill signed on November 11, 2017 by the Governor which adds post traumatic stress disorder to the list of qualifying conditions treatable with medical marijuana in New York State. The date on which the bill was signed into law is no coincidence, as veterans groups in particular had urged Governor Cuomo to allow those with PTSD to use medical marijuana. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, about eight million adults suffer from PTSD in any given year, including tens of thousands of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans. Somewhere between 11% and 20% of those vets will suffer from it each year.

Stemming from the recent drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan, which has had life-lasting effects for many of its residents, including children, due to unsafe lead-related toxicity levels in the drinking water, New York State Governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, announced that various New York municipalities were awarded $20 million dollars in the aggregate to replace lead service lines as part of the New York Clean Water Infrastructure Act of 2017 (the “Act”). The Lead Service Line Replacement Program (the “LSLRP”), a critical part of the Act, provides $2,445,452 to Long Island, including $611,363 to the City of Glen Cove and $611,363 to the Town of Hempstead. Other awardees include New York City ($5,323,904), Buffalo ($567,492), as well as many other cities, towns and counties throughout the state.  In his press release, Governor Cuomo stated “[t]hese critical improvements to New York’s drinking water infrastructure are vital to protecting public health and to laying the foundation for future growth and economic prosperity in these communities”.

The LSLRP was introduced in 2017 and is intended to provide funding to municipalities to replace residential lead service lines, especially those that have corroded, from the public water system. The program empowers the New York State Department of Health to award funds to certain municipalities determined by the “percentage of children with elevated blood levels, median household income, and the number of homes built before 1939”. In fact, homes built before 1930 are more likely to contain lead in its pipes because at that time the government neither regulated this area nor the applicable construction practices.

In addition to the Act, New York has increased its attention to this cause, especially focused on children, who are most at risk for lead-related negative health effects, by requiring health providers to test every child for lead in his or her blood when reaching 1 and 2 years old. Further, in 2016, Governor Cuomo took a bold step by requiring all public schools to test their water for lead as well as mandating those results be made public.

It appears that Governor Cuomo and the New York State legislature have learned the very valuable lessons their counterparts in Michigan have taught us, and the important steps our government has since taken will help ensure the better health and quality of life for all of us that live in the Empire State.

Everyone involved, or thinking about becoming involved, in the cannabis business is aware of the conflict between the laws of those states legalizing marijuana and the Controlled Substance Act (the “CSA”).  The CSA is a federal law making it illegal to manufacture, distribute or dispense a controlled substance.  For purposes of the CSA, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance – making it illegal under federal law to be engaged in the marijuana business regardless of what state law provides.

The obvious consequence of this conflict of laws is the potential for federal prosecution for engaging in the marijuana business.  However, the not-so-obvious practical consequences reach further than you might think.  For example,

  • Taxes. Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, originally targeted for illegal drug dealers, prohibits cannabis businesses from deducting typical business expenses, such as advertising and rent.
  • Leases.  Most leases have covenants against “illegal activity,” which enables landlords to evict marijuana business tenants.  Moreover, many landlords are unwilling to rent to marijuana businesses, despite their legality under state law, for fear of losing their property in a federal civil asset forfeiture action.
  • Banking. In 2014 the Department of Treasury issued guidance for financial institutions that want to do business with the marijuana industry.  Up until that time, banks were reluctant to deal with the marijuana business due to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which requires banks to investigate their customers and to refrain from negligently or knowingly doing business with bad actors.  Today, banks are safe if they follow some pretty onerous rules.  Many banks choose not do business with the industry rather than comply with the diligence and monitoring requirements set forth by the Department of Treasury.
  • Commercial loans. Commercial loans are difficult to obtain without providing collateral; however, in a marijuana business, banks are not allowed to seize or possess the primary asset of a marijuana business – the marijuana – under federal law. Often a marijuana business will not have many other assets that are valuable enough to act as security for financing.
  • Trademarks. Because marijuana is illegal under the CSA, and because the United States Patent and Trademark Office will not register a mark if the applicant cannot show lawful use of the mark in commerce, it is nearly impossible to secure federal registration of a marijuana-related mark (although marks for ancillary products might be obtained).
  • Federal Water. Many areas in the western United States are served by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation, which manages water and power to farmers.  The Bureau has advised that it will report to the Department of Justice any marijuana farmers who use federal water to irrigate their crops.
  • Bankruptcy. At least two courts have held that marijuana businesses cannot take advantage of federal bankruptcy laws.  The rationale is that, because marijuana is illegal under federal law, granting relief under another provision of federal law for the same activity would be “administering the fruits and instrumentalities of Federal criminal activity.”
  • Access to Federal Courts. If you enter into a contract with a marijuana business and need to sue in federal court, will you be able to?  This question has yet to be answered; however, if the prohibition against bankruptcy relief serves as guidance, the outcome is likely not favorable to marijuana businesses.

It is clear that federal law creates many obstacles to establishing and effectively managing a marijuana business.  Those in the industry should plan carefully and seek legal advice as to how to best mitigate the risks arising from the conflict between state and federal laws.

On November 1, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a release concerning its issuance of warning letters to four companies concerning the marketing of products containing cannabidiol (CBD).

CBD is a cannabinoid found in hemp which lacks the psychoactive ingredient THC. Hemp and its derivatives are legal to import to the US and ship from state to state. According to a 2013 review published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, CBD may help in reducing nausea and vomiting; seizures; psychosis disorders; inflammatory disorders; tumor and cancer cells; and anxiety and depression disorders. CBD can be marketed in a variety of product types, such as oil drops, capsules, and topical lotions. CBD oil is legal in New York State.

The four companies that received warning letters from the FDA — Greenroads Health, Natural Alchemist, That’s Natural! Marketing and Consulting, and Stanley Brothers Social Enterprises LLC — are accused of illegally selling CBD products online that claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure cancer without evidence to support these outcomes. The FDA’s warning letters further provide that the four companies distributed the products with unsubstantiated claims regarding preventing, reversing or curing cancer; killing/inhibiting cancer cells or tumors; or other similar anti-cancer claims. Some of the products were also marketed as an alternative or additional treatment for Alzheimer’s and other serious diseases.

Examples of claims made by these companies include:

  • “CBD makes cancer cells commit ‘suicide’ without killing other cells”
  • “…considering the lack of risks associated with CBD it is an attractive alternative or addition to anyone’s treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.”
  • “Adding CBD oil as part of your daily Alzheimer’s medicine routine has a good chance at delaying the progression of the disease…”

“Substances that contain components of marijuana will be treated like any other products that make unproven claims to shrink cancer tumors. We don’t let companies market products that deliberately prey on sick people with baseless claims that their substance can shrink or cure cancer and we’re not going to look the other way on enforcing these principles when it comes to marijuana-containing products,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. “There are a growing number of effective therapies for many cancers. When people are allowed to illegally market agents that deliver no established benefit they may steer patients away from products that have proven, anti-tumor effects that could extend lives.”

Each company is being offered fifteen (15) working days after receipt of the warning letter to notify the FDA in writing of the specific steps that it has taken to correct the violations. The FDA letters warn that the company’s failure to correct the violations promptly may result in legal action, including product seizure and injunction.

False Claims Act whistleblowers expose themselves to significant risks by coming forward and asserting claims of fraud against the government. Often, the whistleblowers, called relators under the False Claims Act, would prefer to maintain their anonymity for personal or professional reasons, but their options to do so are limited.

A False Claims Act case is initially filed under seal, and remains under seal while the government investigates. However, once the government either intervenes in the action or declines to intervene, the seal is lifted, and the False Claims Act complaint is publicly filed. The complaint, and the identity of the relator, become public knowledge, even if the relator does not intend to go forward with the case.

In United States ex rel. Nash v. UCB, Inc., SDNY District Judge Thomas Griesa addressed a relator’s multi-pronged effort to remain unknown. The relator alleged that his former employer, UCB, Inc., had defrauded the federal government out of millions of dollars in Medicaid funds. The Government declined to intervene, however, and the relator intended to not proceed and to dismiss the action. The relator feared that his current employer might retaliate against him when it became known that he had filed an FCA case against his former employer. The relator sought to permanently maintain a seal on all documents in the case, or alternatively, to allow use of the pseudonym “John Doe” and to remove any information from the complaint that could reveal his identity.

The Court first noted the “firmly rooted” presumption of public access to judicial documents, which applies to pleadings such as a complaint. As to relator’s fear of retaliation, the Court did not find this risk to outweigh the presumption of public access to judicial documents. Moreover, the Court pointed to the False Claims Act retaliation provision, 31 USC § 3730(h), which protects a relator from discrimination or retaliation based on acts taken under the False Claims Act. The Court determined that this provision would protect against what it considered a “speculative fear” of employment retaliation. The Court denied the application to keep the case under seal.

Next, relator sought to have the complaint filed under a “John Doe” pseudonym, with the elimination of any identifying information. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), however, states that “The title of the complaint must name all the parties.” Courts have discretion to allow a pseudonym in special circumstances, where the need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to other parties and the public interest, but the bar is high. Factors courts consider include:

  • Highly sensitive and personal matters
  • Risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the party or innocent non-parties
  • Likely severity of alleged harms
  • Particular vulnerability of party to possible harms of disclosure
  • Whether challenge is to Government or private actions
  • Possible mitigation of prejudice by the Court

Judge Griesa found that the relator’s articulated need for anonymity was based on “attenuated and speculative risks of harm,” particularly where the concern was not with the former employer that the relator had sued, but with the current employer that he had not. The Court declined to allow a pseudonym, stating that the public “has a right to know who is using their courts.”

The Court did allow relator’s final request, that references to his current employer be redacted from the filed version of the complaint. The Court found the weight of presumption of public access to the identity of relator’s current employer to be low. Moreover, redactions would not affect the public interest, as the substance of the fraud allegations would be clear from the unredacted portions of the complaint.

Once a case is filed under the False Claims Act, the relator loses control over remaining anonymous. A resort to yet another lawsuit if there is retaliation may provide cold comfort, but the Courts are very reluctant to permit a relator to remain anonymous, even where the government has declined and the case will be dismissed.  Balancing this risk is one of the many considerations for relator and relator’s counsel in commencing a False Claims Act case.

The New York State Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued an emergency regulation clarifying its minimum-wage rules regarding home care employees. The emergency regulation provides that sleep and meal times for home care aides who work shifts of 24 hours or more are not counted as hours worked. Recently, there has been a ringing dissonance between the DOL and decisions set forth by the New York State Appellate Divisions, First and Second Departments, regarding whether home care workers should be paid for an entire 24-hour shift, including sleep and meal time. In fact, the DOL expressly cited the fact that the emergency regulation is being promulgated in direct reaction to decisions issued by the New York State Appellate Divisions. For reference, the decisions triggering the emergency regulation are: Moreno v. Future Care Health Servs., Inc., 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6462 (2d Dept Sept. 13, 2017); (2d Dep’t Sept. 13, 2017); Andreyeyeva v. New York Health Care, Inc., 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6408 (2d Dep’t Sept. 13, 2017); and Tokhtaman v. Human Care, LLC, 149 A.D.3d 476 (1st Dep’t Apr. 11, 2017).

The above-referenced decisions effectively flipped the New York home care industry on its head, each holding, in sum, that home care workers were entitled to pay for all 24 hours worked, including sleep and meal time. Enter the DOL, on October 5, 2017, who quickly put any remaining ambiguity to rest once and for all stating “that hours worked may exclude meal periods and sleep times for home care aides who work shifts of 24 hours or more”. The DOL reasoned that “[t]his regulation is needed to preserve the status quo, prevent the collapse of the homecare industry, and avoid institutionalizing patients who could be cared for at home, in the face of recent decisions by the State Appellate divisions that treat meal periods and sleep time [as hours worked]”.

The emergency regulation is expected to return the home care industry back to normalcy and prevent home care agencies from ceasing to provide “vital, lifesaving care” to thousands of New Yorkers who depend on it. The DOL explained that this “emergency adoption amends the relevant regulations to codify the Commissioner’s longstanding and consistent interpretations that such meal periods and sleep times do not constitute hours worked for purposes of minimum wage and overtime requirements”. And so, the longstanding rule about sleeping on the job still stands: you won’t get paid for it in New York.

Note:  Special thanks to our law clerk, Nicholas G. Moneta, for his assistance in drafting this blog post.

In our previous post, Medical Marijuana 103: Patient and Practitioner Regulations in New York State, we discussed that patients certified for medical marijuana use can designate up to two caregivers. Caregivers can assist patients who are unable to pick up medical marijuana at a dispensing facility or are unable to administer medical marijuana to themselves properly.

Previously the Medical Marijuana Program only allowed for designated caregivers to be natural persons. On October 5, 2017, however, the New York State Department of Health (“DOH”) issued emergency regulations that expand the definition of caregiver to allow certain facilities to be designated caregivers. By expanding the definition in this way, patients who are located in or reside at certain facilities can designate their facility as their caregiver, thus making it easier for such patients to obtain medical marijuana.

The new regulations define a designated caregiver as either a natural person or a facility. The term “facility” is further defined as, among others, hospitals, adult day care facilities, community mental health residences, and private and public schools. In addition, each division, department, component, floor or other unit of a parent facility may be designated as a “facility” for purposes of being designated a caregiver.

Just like natural persons, facilities will need to register with the DOH in order to be designated a caregiver for purposes of the Medical Marijuana Program. Once registered with the DOH facilities will be authorized to lawfully possess, acquire, deliver, transfer, transport and/or administer medical marijuana to certified patients residing in, or attending, that facility.

The DOH considered alternatives prior to issuing the emergency regulations, stating:

The Department could have chosen to keep the status quo and not allow patients to designate facilities as designated caregivers. The Department could have also allowed certified patients to designate an individual within the facility to be a caregiver. However, these options are not viable since patients in facilities may be cared for by multiple staff members in the course of a day. Certified patients have severe debilitating or life-threatening conditions and the regulatory amendments would help to prevent adverse events associated with abrupt discontinuation of a treatment alternative that may be providing relief for certified patients in these facilities.”

The regulations were published in the New York State Register on October 25, 2017. The DOH will accept comments from the public for a minimum of 45 days following the date of publication. After publication in the Register and receipt of public comment, the agency may either adopt, revise or withdraw the proposal. This change is just one of the latest revisions implemented by the DOH in an attempt to strengthen and expand New York’s struggling Medical Marijuana Program.