Dispensaries and medical marijuana certifications and indications: Unveiling the geographic connections in Pennsylvania, USA

Introduction

The legalization of medical marijuana (MMJ) is expanding worldwide, including in some parts of the U.S., Europe, Asia, and Africa.¹ In the U.S., as of 2023, 38 states allow medical use of cannabis products.² States have a growing list of qualifying conditions for MMJ, despite limited evidence of the effectiveness of MMJ for many of these conditions.³ The geographic location of MMJ dispensaries has been associated with marijuana use,^4–6 however it is unknown whether the locations of MMJ dispensaries is associated with the qualifying conditions for which individuals are being certified. As MMJ legalization and the number of certifying conditions in the U.S. expands,^2,7 it is imperative to understand the potential implications of the locations of MMJ dispensaries.

Geographic locations of MMJ dispensaries have been associated with marijuana use patterns. Living near a higher number of MMJ dispensaries has been associated with a greater number of days of marijuana use, greater marijuana demand, and frequency of marijuana use.^4–6 Much of this research has been conducted in California, the first state to legalize MMJ in 1996. It is unknown whether these findings are generalizable to states in other regions of the country.

Very little is known about whether geographic access to MMJ dispensaries is associated with the types of qualifying conditions for which people are certified. In 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) published a comprehensive review of the evidence regarding the health effects of using cannabis and cannabis-derived products.³ In the report, NASEM categorized conditions into one of five categories: conclusive evidence, substantial evidence, moderate evidence, limited evidence, and no or insufficient evidence to support the association.³ A subsequent report identified a mismatch between many of the qualifying conditions allowed under state law and the evidence supporting the use of MMJ. In 2019, a national report estimated 15.4% of patient-reported qualifying conditions had less than substantial evidence of the effectiveness of MMJ treatment.⁸ Since that time, new states and new qualifying conditions have been added to MMJ regulations.⁷

Different community characteristics have been associated with geographic access to MMJ dispensaries, but results have differed across states. In New York state, for example. MMJ services were least available in neighborhoods with highly educated residents,⁹ while in Oklahoma census tracts with at least one MMJ dispensary had a higher proportion of uninsured individuals living below the poverty level.¹⁰ In New York state, MMJ services were least available in neighborhoods with Black residents,⁹ while in Los Angeles the presence of MMJ dispensaries was associated with a higher proportion of Hispanic residents.¹¹ Differences in geographic proximity to MMJ dispensaries may impact access to effective treatment options for conditions such as chronic pain or multiple sclerosis.³ Conversely, there is some prior evidence that closer proximity may have negative consequences, as proximity has been associated with elevated rates of marijuana-related hospitalizations and crime.^12–14

As the number of MMJ dispensaries grow, it is important to understand the implications of where states locate MMJ dispensaries and how to provide equitable access. Pennsylvania legalized MMJ in 2016 and opened its first dispensary in 2018. Using data from the Pennsylvania Department of Health, we conducted a study of the association between proximity to MMJ dispensaries and both the proportion of individuals certified and the proportion of certifications for conditions that have no or insufficient evidence. We then evaluated the association between racial, ethnic, socioeconomic community features and access to Pennsylvania dispensaries.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study of MMJ dispensaries in Pennsylvania zip code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) from 2018 to 2021 using data from the Pennsylvania Department of Health obtained 2022 and the Census Bureau and American Community Survey. According to the Census Bureau, Pennsylvania was the fifth most populous state in 2020 in the US (population = 13.0 million, 26.6% non-White). We evaluated associations between geographic access, defined using distance and density measures, to MMJ dispensaries and certifications. We then measured associations between community sociodemographic factors and MMJ dispensary access.

Results

Of 1,831 ZCTAs, 1,608 were included in the analysis. From 2018 to 2021, the median distance to the nearest dispensary decreased from 14.7 miles to 9.3 miles (23.7 kilometers to 15.0 kilometers). The percent of ZCTAs within five miles of a dispensary nearly doubled, from 16.5% to 30.5%. The percent of ZCTAs with at least two dispensaries within 15 minutes more than tripled, from 9.2% to 27.8% (Figure 1, Table 1). The median percent of population certified for MMJ in Pennsylvania ZCTAs increased from 0.55% to 3.54% (Figure 1) and the median percent of certifications for low evidence conditions decreased from 3.3% to 1.9%.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Pennsylvania maps of percent of adults with medical marijuana (MMJ) certification 2018 – 2021 in Zip Code Tabulation Areas with at least 100 adult residents

In unadjusted and adjusted models, the proportion of the population certified increased with greater dispensary access (i.e., shorter distance, higher density) (Table 2). This finding was present in each year from 2018 to 2021. Compared to ZCTAs with the nearest dispensary more than ten miles away, the proportion of adults certified increased by up to 47% for ZCTAs within 5 to 10 miles of a dispensary and 42% for ZCTAs within 5 miles (2018, model 3). Compared to ZCTAs with zero dispensaries within a 15 minute drive, the proportion of adults certified increased by up to 35% for ZCTAs with at least 1 dispensary and 31% for ZCTAs with at least 2 dispensaries (2018, model 1). These associations remained after adjusting for community features (models 2 and 3).

In years 2019 to 2021, the proportion of certifications for no or insufficient evidence conditions decreased with greater dispensary access (Table 4). Compared to ZCTAs with the nearest dispensary more than ten miles away, the proportion of adults certified decreased by up to 30% for ZCTAs within 5 to 10 miles of a dispensary and 38% for ZCTAs within 5 miles (2021, model 1). Compared to ZCTAs with zero dispensaries within a 15 minute drive, the proportion of adults certified decreased by up to 34% for ZCTAs with at least 1 dispensary and 22% for ZCTAs with at least 2 dispensaries (2021, model 1). These associations remained after adjusting for community features (models 2 and 3).

ZCTAs with the higher proportions of NW-H individuals had higher odds of having a dispensary within five miles (versus greater than five miles) in all years than ZCTAs with the lowest proportion of NW-H individuals. Adjusting for median income, in communities with the highest proportion of NW-H (quartile 4) the odds of having a dispensary within five miles were more than 25 times the odds among communities with the lowest proportion of NW-H individuals (quartile 1) in every year. ZCTAs with higher median incomes had lower odds of having a dispensary within five miles, but most of the confidence intervals included the null value.

Discussion

As legalization of MMJ expands worldwide,¹ understanding the implications of the availability of MMJ in communities is essential. Geographic access to MMJ dispensaries dramatically increased in Pennsylvania from 2018 to 2021. We conducted the first study of the association between MMJ dispensary locations in Pennsylvania and MMJ certifications and the first study in the U.S. of the association between dispensary locations and qualifying conditions. We found that geographic access to MMJ dispensaries since the first dispensary opened in 2018 has consistently differed by the race and ethnic composition of Pennsylvania communities.

As of April, 2023, 38 states and Washington DC have legalized MMJ and within those states,¹⁷ certifications have been rapidly growing.¹⁸ In Pennsylvania, the proportion of adults certified for MMJ increased more than six-fold from 2018 to 2021. We observed that greater access, measured by both distance and density, was associated with MMJ certifications, independent of demographic and socioeconomic composition of the population, factors that have been associated with MMJ use.¹⁹ These findings are consistent with other states with a longer history of MMJ legalization. Multiple studies in California, for example, support the association between medical marijuana proximity and demand and utilization.^4–6

In addition to the growth in the population certified, Pennsylvania has increased the number of qualifying conditions since legalization in 2016.²⁰ Greater access to MMJ dispensaries was associated with the qualifying conditions for which individuals were certified. Specifically, greater distances and lower density of MMJ dispensaries were associated with a higher proportion of certifications for qualifying conditions with insufficient evidence³ of the effectiveness of MMJ treatment. Prior studies have demonstrated that access to care for some of these qualifying conditions, including opioid use disorder^21–22 and epilepsy²³, is more limited in minority racial and ethnic groups and in low income populations.²⁴ However, even after adjusting for these factors, the association between distance, density, and certifications for insufficient evidence conditions remained. It may be that those communities with less access to MMJ dispensaries also have less access to specialty care and treatment that was not captured in our analyses. Limited access to traditional health care for these conditions could motivate people living in such communities to seek MMJ as an alternative treatment option.

In Pennsylvania, we observed that ZCTAs with higher proportions of NW-H residents were more likely to have a MMJ dispensary within five miles. This association was independent of median income. Studies in other states in the U.S., such as California and Colorado, have also shown the density of dispensaries to be positively associated with higher proportions of Hispanic residents¹¹ and higher proportions of racial and ethnic minorities in general.⁵ Studies in Oklahoma, California and Colorado show that dispensaries are closer in proximity to communities with higher rates of poverty,⁴ higher rates of uninsured individuals,¹⁰ and lower income levels.⁶ Pennsylvania zoning laws (2016 Act 16) for MMJ dispensaries specify that a dispensary may not operate on the same site as a facility used for growing and processing marijuana and may not be located within 1,000 feet of the property line of a public, private, or parochial school or a day care center.²⁵ Municipalities within the state have adopted a variety of zoning ordinances regarding where MMJ dispensaries can be located.²⁶ The potential benefits and harms of proximity to MMJ dispensaries is still poorly understood. For individuals with conditions for which there is evidence of the effectiveness of MMJ, such as chronic pain and chemotherapy induced nausea, proximity may improve access to effective treatment options.³ However, some studies have reported that closer proximity is also associated with an increase in the number of marijuana hospitalizations,¹³ crime,¹² and rates of physical abuse.¹⁴ Importantly, these studies demonstrate correlations, not necessarily causation. However, future research should explore the impact of ordinances on geographic access to MMJ across population subgroups, and the potential benefits and harms²⁷ of proximity.

This study had some limitations. First, this was an ecological study and is vulnerable to ecological fallacy. Thus, the findings should not be interpreted as individual-level risk factors for certifications. Second, this is a cross-sectional study and it is unknown whether the association between location and certifications is due to greater geographic access or the placement of dispensaries in response to demand. There are multiple strengths to this novel study. We used two measures of geographic access to MMJ dispensaries, distance and density. In analyzing associations between geographic access and certifications we adjusted for potential community-level confounders. We evaluated these associations using data from the first four years of MMJ in Pennsylvania, a period of rapid acceleration in MMJ dispensary growth and certifications.

Conclusions

Our study found differences in geographic access to dispensaries by the racial and ethnic composition of communities. There may be implications to where MMJ dispensaries are located, including the proportion of individuals certified for MMJ and the qualifying conditions for which they are certified. As U.S. states and countries around the world continue to consider and respond to the legalization of MMJ, it is critical to evaluate the impact of MMJ locations in the use of and access to MMJ.