Sponsored content. This article was produced in paid cooperation with DrAnsay. Data analysis and interpretation remain the responsibility of Hemp Magazine’s editorial team.
A new survey commissioned by telehealth provider DrAnsay paints a clear picture: the majority has no objection to cannabis as medicine, but few feel well-informed about it. The survey sponsor draws conclusions about expanding telemedicine access. We examine the data and the political context in which it sits.
What the Survey Shows
Market research firm Appinio surveyed 1,000 people aged 18 to 65 on behalf of DrAnsay. The company highlighted three key findings:
- 76 percent agree to at least some extent that cannabis should be recognized as a regular medical treatment option, provided therapy is prescribed and monitored by a physician.
- 37 percent feel well or very well informed about medical cannabis, its applications, and the opportunities and risks it presents.
- 62 percent would consider therapy if recommended by a doctor.
The survey identifies fear of addiction and concerns about physical and psychological side effects as the most common worries. Respondents specifically request more reliable information on these very topics.
One important caveat: we have only the press release so far, not the questionnaire, field period, or exact answer options. The phrasing „agree to at least some extent“ combines two response levels, which naturally inflates the approval figure. We have requested the full documentation and will supplement this article once available.
How the Sponsor Interprets the Data
Dr. jur. Can Ansay, founder and CEO of DrAnsay, reads a communication problem into the numbers: „Three out of four support medical cannabis as a regular treatment option when medically supervised, but only just over one-third feel truly informed. And when people are uncertain, they don’t start treatment.“
His conclusion targets how care is organized: „Access must become easier, more digital, and lower-barrier. We already have the technical capabilities to deliver medical consultations regardless of where patients live.“ Telemedicine should not replace physician review, he argues, but make it more accessible; AI could prepare patient histories and pre-sort information.
Where We Read the Data Differently
The survey does document an information deficit—that much is solid. But the jump from there to a bottleneck in access is not a small one. People who feel poorly informed first need education, not necessarily a faster prescription pathway. Both can overlap, but they need not.
There is also a finding that contradicts the bottleneck narrative. Access to medical cannabis in Germany has not tightened over recent years—it has significantly widened. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, according to figures from Germany’s Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, 67.6 tons of cannabis flower were imported; for the full year, the Health Ministry projects around 300 tons. We detailed how these figures are debated politically in our coverage of 300-ton imports.
The real bottleneck lies less in quantity than in distribution: if a patient finds a practice willing to prescribe, they often receive their prescription quickly. If they don’t find one, they hit a dead end. This is precisely why the debate over the path to prescriptions is so contested.
Lawmakers Are Planning the Opposite
The call for more telemedicine collides with legislation moving in the opposite direction. A bill to amend the Medical Cannabis Act has been pending in the Bundestag since late 2025 and proposes two restrictions: cannabis flower should only be prescribed after direct in-person doctor contact, and mail delivery to patients should be eliminated, confining dispensing to brick-and-mortar pharmacies.
None of this has been passed yet. The process is stalled in the Health Committee, with no vote date set. Until then, current law applies: telemedicine-based prescriptions are permitted, and pharmacies may ship flower. We explored this dispute in depth in our article on telemedicine under pressure.
This survey arrives at a moment when lawmakers are deciding whether the digital path to prescriptions stays or goes. That also explains why a telemedicine provider is publishing access-gap data right now. The numbers don’t become false, but you should know who collected them and what interest they serve. Our guide on cannabis on prescription covers what applies today and how to currently obtain a prescription.
What Holds Up
We consider three points robust. First: outright rejection is not the problem—a broad majority supports medical use when physician-supervised. Second: there is a real information gap, and it centers on topics where half-knowledge causes the most harm: addiction and side effects. Third: how patients will access prescriptions in the future is not a question for technology but for lawmakers, and that decision is still pending.
More about the company and its services can be found on DrAnsay’s website.
Note: This article reflects the state of knowledge as of September 25, 2026, and is neither legal nor medical advice. It contains no health claims or therapeutic recommendations. The choice of medication, dosage, and delivery method is made solely by the treating physician. The survey figures come from research commissioned by the sponsor; the questionnaire, field period, and answer options were not available to the editorial team at deadline and have been requested.
Wie gut fühlst du dich über medizinisches Cannabis informiert?
Sources: Press release „Why Distribution Is the Bottleneck,“ DrAnsay via Borgmeier Public Relations, September 24, 2026, with survey by Appinio of 1,000 respondents aged 18 to 65; Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices and Federal Health Ministry on import volumes; Bill to Amend the Medical Cannabis Act, Bundestag version; original reporting by Hemp Magazine.
Branchen-Update
News, Analysen und Reportagen — mehrmals im Monat direkt in dein Postfach.
Folge uns
