Bill to waive therapeutic cannabis application fee for veterans draws split reaction over program funding

CONCORD — House Bill 205, which would exempt veterans from the therapeutic cannabis program application fee, drew mixed testimony Wednesday as advocates urged lowered cost barriers for veterans while oversight bodies and some veterans’ organizations warned of fiscal effects on the self-funded program.

Sponsor Representative Heath Howard (Stratford) described the bill as a response to veterans’ limited access to certification through federal VA providers; because VA clinicians cannot certify patients for state cannabis programs, some veterans must pay out-of-pocket for community providers to obtain certification. Howard said his constituent paid significantly more than the standard $50 certification fee and framed the bill as a measure to reduce that burden.

Program funding and fiscal mechanics: DHHS administrator Michael Holt told the committee the department takes no position but estimated the fiscal effect: about 1,500 veterans are enrolled in the roughly 15,000-patient program (about 10 percent). At $50 per card and a three-year certification period, exempting veterans would reduce program revenue by roughly $75,000 over three years — about $25,000 annually. Because the therapeutic program is statutorily self-funded, Holt said the lost revenue would be recovered by billing ATCs (which could pass costs to other patients) unless the legislature or department otherwise changed fees or appropriations.

Divergent advisory board view: Jerry Knirk, chair of the Therapeutic Cannabis Medical Oversight Board, said the board struggled to reach a consensus. While the board recognizes the access barrier veterans face (VA providers will not certify), members were also concerned about the program’s financial health. Knirk said the board voted not to support HB 205 (vote 5–1, three abstentions), citing the bill’s potential to shift costs to other patients.

Veteran and stakeholder testimony: Kevin Grady, representing the State Veterans Advisory Committee, told the committee the advisory group opposed HB 205; he said the committee reviewed the bill and determined it did not target the subset of veterans most in need relative to other veteran support priorities. Individual veteran witnesses described personal financial burdens to secure community certification and supported fee relief for veterans on fixed incomes.

Safety and clinical concerns: SAM New Hampshire opposed the exemption and raised clinical questions about using cannabis for PTSD; the group cited peer-reviewed literature and questioned whether the state should be making the program more accessible to veterans pending further clinical evidence. The medical oversight board and DHHS emphasized the program does not currently receive general fund dollars and that fee changes would produce a cost-shift under the program’s funding rules.

Next steps: The public hearing closed without a committee vote recorded in the transcript. If the legislature exempts a class of patients from fees, the program’s statutory self-funding design makes fee and registration formulas the mechanism for balancing lost revenue absent an appropriation.