Board of Physicians denies petition to add medullary sponge kidney as qualifying condition for medical cannabis

The Board of Physicians on May 16, 2025, voted to deny a petition to add medullary sponge kidney disease (MSK) as a qualifying debilitating condition for the state medical cannabis program.

The board concluded there is insufficient evidence that marijuana or cannabinoids are more likely than not to be beneficial for MSK itself; several board members said pain from kidney stones is already covered under the program’s existing chronic pain criterion.

Board members discussed the medical literature submitted by the petitioner, who was not present at the meeting. Dr. Bill (board member) summarized the literature search and said that only a small number of epidemiological and review articles were relevant and that the evidence “does not provide strong evidence but can be taken into consideration.” Dr. Berry, board member, told colleagues that the petition highlighted kidney stones, nephrolithiasis and urinary tract infections as the symptoms that prompted application and said those complaints “can fit under the chronic pain condition, which is covered by the medical marijuana program.”

Members repeatedly emphasized two concerns that informed the denial: (1) the absence of controlled clinical data showing cannabinoids prevent stone formation or treat the underlying renal disease, and (2) a lack of evidence about long‑term effects of cannabinoids on renal function and interactions with other medications. Dr. Berry said the literature did not show that medical marijuana is preventive for stones and flagged uncertainty about renal‑function impacts. Several board members recommended that patients whose primary problem is chronic or recurrent pain pursue certification under the program’s chronic pain category, which the board noted covers pain lasting six months or more.

During the meeting the chair read the board’s procedural question on whether marijuana is “more likely than not to have the potential to be beneficial” for MSK. The roll call on that question yielded three “no” votes and two abstentions; there were no “yes” votes. Because all four approval criteria must be answered affirmatively to recommend adding a condition, the petition was denied.

Board members asked staff to document that the denial reflected insufficient evidence for the disease itself and not a dismissal of patients’ symptoms. The petitioner, the board confirmed, had submitted the single review article cited in the packet. No formal amendment or follow‑up policy change was adopted at the meeting; members discussed but did not vote on a possible future approach to recurrent‑acute pain syndromes as a subcategory of chronic pain.

The board recorded the denial and closed consideration of the petition; staff said they would contact members about the next meeting date.