New Study Reveals Key Differences in Patient Experiences Accessing Medicinal Cannabis in Australia: Clinics vs. Generalist Settings
Article Written by Adam Isaac Miller
Read time: 3-4 mins
I must admit, reading through this latest research on medicinal cannabis access in Australia stirred a mix of optimism and concern. On one hand, the rapid growth of dedicated cannabis clinics since legalisation in 2016 has clearly opened doors for thousands of patients who might otherwise be left without options. On the other hand, the findings underscore how these specialised services might be falling short in terms of holistic care, higher costs, and patient satisfaction—echoing broader concerns about fragmented healthcare in an industry still navigating regulatory challenges.
This study, published in the Journal of Cannabis Research, dives into consumer perspectives, revealing differences between medicinal cannabis clinics (MCC) and generalist health settings (GHS).
For context, medicinal cannabis has been legally prescribable in Australia since 2016, but most products remain unapproved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), requiring special access schemes. A 2020 Senate Inquiry highlighted doctors' reluctance to prescribe due to limited evidence, stigma, and regulatory burdens, paving the way for MCC to fill the gap. These clinics, often leveraging telehealth post-COVID, now handle a significant portion of prescriptions—potentially hundreds of thousands annually. Yet, critics argue (and I tend to agree) they prioritise cannabis over integrated care, leading to higher fees and over-reliance on a single treatment for complex conditions like chronic pain or mental health.
The new study, part of the 2022 Cannabis As Medicine Survey (CAMS-22), analysed responses from 2,394 adults who used prescribed medicinal cannabis in the prior 12 months. Researchers compared experiences between those mainly accessing treatment from MCC (79.3% of participants) and GHS, using Bayesian statistical models to identify differences in demographics, treatment patterns, and satisfaction.
Understanding Key Terms: MCC vs. GHS
To clarify, MCCs are specialised clinics focused primarily on prescribing medicinal cannabis for various conditions, often via telehealth and sometimes linked to producers. GHS refer to everyday medical practices, like general practitioners (GPs), where cannabis is prescribed alongside other health issues. This distinction matters because MCC emerged to meet demand amid mainstream reluctance, but they operate under different business models—potentially influencing care quality.
Patient Profiles: Who Accesses What?
The research reveals notable demographic and health differences. MCC patients were younger (average 3.5 years younger, 95% CI: -4.7 to -2.2) and more likely to be employed (OR=2.1, 95% CI: 1.8-2.5). They also reported better self-rated physical and mental health but higher rates of CUD (14% vs. 9%, OR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.2-1.8).
In terms of cannabis history, MCC users started medical use younger, were more likely to have prior non-medical use, and continued recreational use alongside treatment. GHS patients, conversely, favoured oral products (higher CBD content) and spent about 15-20% less weekly on medication ($18.10 less, 95% CI: 8.9-28.1).
Conditions treated also varied: MCC patients were more likely to seek help for mental health issues like anxiety or depression (OR=1.6, 95% CI: 1.3-2.0), while GHS focused on chronic pain (OR=0.7, 95% CI: 0.6-0.8). Strikingly, 49% of GHS patients said their prescriber handled other health issues, versus just 3% in MCC (OR=0.03, 95% CI: 0.02-0.04)—highlighting MCC's siloed approach.
Assessing the Evidence: Satisfaction and Care Quality
Overall satisfaction was high in both settings, but GHS edged out with better ratings across the board. MCC patients were less satisfied with consultation times (initial: OR=0.8, 95% CI: 0.7-0.9; follow-up: OR=0.7, 95% CI: 0.6-0.9), information on harms/benefits (OR=0.7, 95% CI: 0.6-0.9), evidence discussions (OR=0.7, 95% CI: 0.6-0.8), and integration of other treatments like counselling or physiotherapy (OR=0.5, 95% CI: 0.4-0.6). Costs were a sore point too (OR=0.6, 95% CI: 0.5-0.7), possibly due to higher fees or pricier THC-dominant products.
These findings align with prior critiques: a 2024 study by Dobson et al. noted stigma against MCC prescribers as "pseudo-recreational," but this data pushes back, showing only a minority in either setting had CUD or non-medical use. Still, the higher THC prescriptions in MCC raise questions about tailored dosing, especially for mental health.
Real-world voices echo this. One anonymous MCC patient shared in related forums: "It's convenient via telehealth, but consultations feel rushed—no talk of other therapies." In contrast, a GHS user noted: "My GP integrates it with my pain management plan; it's not just cannabis."
The authors conclude MCC boost access but may fragment care for chronic conditions needing multimodal approaches. They call for independent evaluations of outcomes beyond satisfaction, like safety and efficacy.
Outlandish Claims and Broader Implications
Let's address a potential myth: Are MCC just "cannabis distribution centres" for recreational users? The data says no—most patients in both settings report legitimate medical use, with low CUD rates overall. However, the younger, employed MCC cohort using more THC could fuel stigma, ignoring how GHS patients (often older, with poorer health) benefit from integrated care.
In Closing
The reality is medicinal cannabis, like any therapy, thrives in integrated, evidence-based settings. This study highlights MCC's role in expanding access but warns of higher costs, lower satisfaction, and fragmented care—potentially harming vulnerable patients with chronic conditions. For better harm reduction, Australia needs nuanced regulation, including training more GPs, subsidising costs, and ensuring MCC coordination with broader healthcare. Millions use cannabis medically; let's prioritise quality over convenience.
Adam has spent a decade working with unregistered medicines, specialising in Cannabinoid Therapeutics, where he has supported the development, implementation and market entry of multiple cannabinoid product portfolios across Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Brazil. Before working in the medical cannabis field, Adam spent nearly ten years building various B2B businesses in education, investment, and medicinal cannabis, progressing through roles in business development, strategy, product development, and project management. As one of the early experts in Australia's emerging cannabis industry, he has consulted for private and listed cannabis producers and ancillary businesses since 2015. Adam founded and served on the board of The Medical Cannabis Council, Australia's first not-for-profit industry body. A graduate of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology with a Bachelor of Entrepreneurship, he is a frequent public speaker and publishes a widely read industry newsletter. His expertise has been featured in major news outlets, including the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian Financial Review, Nine News, Startup Smart, SBS, SkyNews, MJBizDaily and other prominent publications.
Disclaimer: This information is shared with a global readership for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical or business advice. All patient-related information has been de-identified OR fictional to protect privacy. Nothing in this article is intended to promote the use or supply of medical cannabis to members of the public.
