New Hampshire subcommittee backs HB 54 to let medical cannabis centers convert to for‑profit status

CONCORD, N.H. — A House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs subcommittee on Friday signaled support for HB 54, a bill that would allow existing Alternative Treatment Centers (ATCs) in New Hampshire to change corporate status from nonprofit to for‑profit in order to improve access and lower costs for patients.

The subcommittee’s discussion focused on two recurring problems that proponents said the bill would address: constrained financing that limits ATCs’ ability to expand or modernize, and limited patient access that drives some New Hampshire patients to buy unregulated product across state lines. Lawmakers also pressed for guardrails to prevent large, out‑of‑state cannabis companies from taking control of the program.

Supporters told the panel that nonprofit status has made it difficult for the three statutorily authorized ATCs to obtain conventional business loans. “Being structured as a nonprofit reduces our ability in a material way to raise funds,” said Brandon Pollock, volunteer chair of the board for Temescal Wellness. He said high interest debt has constrained the company’s ability to open an additional dispensary and upgrade equipment. “If this legislation makes it all the way through…that would give the organization flexibility to look for more conventional business financing and retire that debt load.”

Keenan Blum, CEO of Granite Leaf Cannabis, described similar operational limits and said the company employs about 45 people in New Hampshire and operates three facilities. “We are consistently asked…to personally guarantee” loans, Blum said, adding that that requirement has raised financing costs and constrained improvements such as laboratory upgrades and energy‑saving lighting.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not take a position on the bill, but Michael Holt, administrator of the Therapeutic Cannabis Program, told the panel the department is available as a resource. Holt said the bill does not change the state’s regulatory authority over ATCs and noted past gubernatorial vetoes had raised concerns that allowing corporate conversions could give the three existing ATCs an unfair advantage if recreational legalization later occurs.

Lawmakers and stakeholders discussed program scale and access. Matt Simon of Granite Leaf Cannabis recapped the program’s history: the legislature initially approved a single dispensary proposal in 2009 (which the governor vetoed), and later established four ATC licenses; subsequent law allowed each ATC a second dispensary, for a maximum of eight locations by statute. Supporters said the small size of New Hampshire’s program (about 15,000 registered patients, as the program statistics show) limits market incentives for large corporations to enter.

Members repeatedly raised the risk that a profit motive combined with heavy regulation could produce anti‑competitive behavior. “My concern is creating an environment in which you have a combination of profit motive and a high degree of regulation, which I think is a recipe for bad policy, anti‑competitive practices and something that ultimately harms consumers,” Representative Woods said.

Supporters proposed targeted guardrails. Witnesses and lawmakers described provisions in the bill that would, for an initial period, restrict sales of membership or ownership stakes to out‑of‑state entities and require that a large share of management remain New Hampshire residents. “The foreign corporation guardrail is the largest,” one ATC representative said, summarizing protections intended to keep control in‑state while allowing corporate restructuring for financing.

Patients and patient advocates pressed the access argument. Nathaniel Gurian, a certified medical cannabis patient from Sandwich, said higher prices in New Hampshire drive some patients to buy across the border in Maine, where dispensaries often sell similar products at substantially lower prices and without the same testing requirements. “I really, really would like to support my local dispensaries,” Gurian said, but added that the price gap has pushed him to shop out of state.

Several ATC representatives said converting corporate form would not change day‑to‑day regulatory obligations such as testing, packaging and restrictions on advertising. “This legislation doesn’t change any of the overarching regulations that underpin the medical marijuana program in New Hampshire,” Brandon Pollock said, describing the change as largely a corporate and financing mechanism that would allow conversion of high‑interest debt into more conventional financing.

After roughly an hour of testimony and questioning, members indicated they would recommend “OTP” (ought to pass) for HB 54. Representative Nagel summarized the subcommittee’s view: while concerns remain about the combination of profit motive and heavy regulation, “the real‑world problems are significantly larger than my concerns,” he said, citing patient access, price competition with unregulated markets and ATCs’ financing challenges. Members agreed to return a recommendation to the full committee accordingly.

No formal roll‑call vote on the bill was recorded during the work session. Representative Wendy Thomas, the bill’s sponsor and a representative from Merrimack, said she would also investigate the separate statutory limit on the number of dispensaries as a follow‑up.

Why it matters: HB 54 would affect the three ATCs statutorily authorized in New Hampshire and roughly 15,000 registered medical patients. Proponents argue corporate conversion would ease financing constraints, lower prices and reduce the incentive for patients to buy unregulated product across state lines; opponents and some lawmakers urged careful guardrails to keep local control and protect patient‑focused services.

What’s next: The subcommittee signaled support for the bill and plans to forward an OTP recommendation; additional committee and floor action would be required before any change in law takes effect.