The Department of Economics at the University of Missouri – Columbia recently released a study entitled, Missouri’s Medical Marijuana Market: An Economic Analysis of Consumers, Producers, and Sellers. The intent of their study is to provide the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) with a quantitative analysis of the market for medicinal cannabis here in Missouri.
Although I appreciate the intent of this study, it would seem the authors missed their mark. Specifically in the area of quantifying patient counts over time. The table below summarizes the projected Missouri patient counts from the Mizzou report and compares them to our own internal estimates, and includes the delta (difference).
| 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |
| Mizzou | 19,000 | 22,500 | 26,000 | N/A |
| Lit Naturals | 49,008 | 79,638 | 116,394 | 183,780 |
| Delta | 30,008 | 57,138 | 90,394 | N/A |
It must be understood that we did not have our analysis provided by economic experts, for whom I have a deep respect for. However, our methods led to estimates that largely match up with estimates used to build Article 14 of the Missouri Constitution. Furthermore, industry experts and the DHSS itself have used estimates very similar to ours before this report was published.
As you can imagine, a business plan isn’t worth the paper it’s written on if proper marketing research isn’t completed. The delta between our figures and Mizzou’s are very significant. So the work began. We started pouring over the 47 page report to find out why. The answer seems to lie with the qualifying condition of chronic pain.
The authors of Mizzou’s report clearly acknowledges that chronic pain, as a qualifying condition, is a significant driver of patient uptake. However, this information is quickly abandoned as the researchers made their calculations. It is clear that the authors used available data from all states who have a medical marijuana program. No distinction was made between states that do and do not have chronic pain as a qualifying condition. It is well known that many states do not.
At this point I could illustrate other differences in methodologies, but I think this single point accounts for the most significant difference. Only time will tell whose projections are more accurate. I hope that, in the meantime, the DHSS uses a healthy amount of skepticism as they review this report and especially if they elect to make decisions based on the data presented by Mizzou’s study.
Further reading:
MU Market Study
The Kansas City Star
KCUR Radio
Columbia Missourian
Springfield News-Leader