The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
September 25, 2025
Quarterly Article
Beth McGinty
Pradhyumna Wagle
Christie Lee Luo
Nicholas J. Seewald
Elizabeth A. Stuart
Kayla N. Tormohlen
Aug 4, 2025
September 2024
December 2019
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
See all articles in the special issue, Mental Health and Substance Use Challenges Facing the United States: What Can State Policymakers Do?
Context: State medical cannabis laws, currently in place in 39 states and Washington, DC, provide an avenue for therapeutic use of cannabis to manage chronic noncancer pain stemming from conditions such as arthritis and low back pain. These laws may also influence cannabis and opioid addiction and overdose, for example, if people substitute cannabis in place of opioids to manage pain. No studies, to our knowledge, have examined how state medical cannabis laws influence health care use related to addiction to or overdose from cannabis or opioids among people with chronic noncancer pain.
Methods: We used a difference-in-differences design and augmented synthetic control analyses comparing changes in cannabis use disorder (CUD) and opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment and cannabis and opioid overdose-related health care use before and after medical cannabis law implementation among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic noncancer pain in seven states (Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania) relative to changes in outcomes over the same period in 17 comparison states (Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) without medical cannabis laws.
Findings: State medical cannabis laws had an estimated average effect of less than 0.005 percentage points on the overall proportion of patients receiving any CUD or OUD treatment, less than 0.009 percentage points on the proportion of patients newly initiating CUD or OUD treatment, and less than 0.0005 percentage points on the proportion of patients receiving overdose-related health care for cannabis or opioid overdoses (p > 0.05 for all findings).
Conclusions: Our study did not identify effects of state medical cannabis laws on health care use related to CUD or OUD treatment or overdose among Medicare beneficiaries younger than age 65 years with chronic noncancer pain.
