Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Atc For Profit Conversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears bill to let New Hampshire therapeutic dispensaries convert from nonprofit to for-profit entities
Summary
House Bill 54 would allow alternative treatment centers (ATCs) to convert from nonprofit structures into for-profit corporations or LLCs. Proponents say conversion would ease access to capital and lower prices; opponents warned it could open the door to profit-driven expansion and urged preserving nonprofit safeguards.
CONCORD — House Bill 54 would allow New Hampshire’s alternative treatment centers to convert from their current nonprofit organizational form to a for-profit corporation or limited liability company. The House Committee on Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs heard public testimony for and against the change.
Sponsor Representative Wendy Thomas (Merrimack) said converting to a for-profit structure would give ATCs broader financing options and allow businesses to access capital markets or private investment; supporters argue that lower capital costs would translate into lower patient prices. Thomas noted similar statutory nonprofit requirements were eliminated in neighboring states and that past bills on for-profit conversion passed both chambers but were vetoed by a prior governor (SB 145 in 2019 and SB 38 in 2022).
Industry and patient perspective: ATC representatives and operators testified they face financing constraints because nonprofit status prevents stock sales and limits collateralized lending; those limits raise the cost of capital and increase operating expenses that are passed to patients. Mike McLaughlin of Sanctuary ATC and Matt Simon of Granite Leaf Cannabis said conversion would allow more conventional business financing, which they said would lower prices and make operations more sustainable.
Opposition and caution: Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) New Hampshire opposed the legislation, arguing the nonprofit requirement was originally designed to limit commercial pressure and industry influence and to constrain profiteering. Opponents warned that for-profit entry could change incentives in ways that harm patient access and public health; they noted that ATCs currently do not receive typical nonprofit tax advantages because cannabis remains a federally illegal Schedule I substance.
Fiscal and competitive context: Supporters pointed out that many states that initially required nonprofits for medical cannabis later removed the requirement; proponents framed HB 54 as aligning New Hampshire with regional markets where for-profit cannabis firms operate at greater scale.
Next steps: The public hearing closed with varied testimony; no committee vote was recorded in the transcript. If enacted, the bill would prompt corporate conversions, require ATC board approvals for plans of conversion and likely trigger administrative and oversight work by DHHS to review conversion plans and any effects on pricing or access.
