Update:  More good news

CT Doctor Protection Bill Passes House

April 30, 2009- Connecticut Lyme groups and the national Lyme Disease
Association, Inc. are pleased to announce that H.B. 6200, with a floor
amendment by Representative Betsy Ritter et al., passed through the
Connecticut House of Representatives.

The House vote was unanimously in support of the bill by a final vote of 137
to 0.

The discussion on the floor this morning clearly delineated the protective
intent of the bill. The bill will now proceed to the Senate for
consideration.

H.B. 6200 contains language that will protect CT licensed Lyme treating
physicians from prosecution by the State of Connecticut Medical Examining
Board solely on the basis of a clinical diagnosis and /or for treatment of
long-term Lyme disease.

The bill provides the definition for Lyme disease which includes , “the
presence in a patient of signs and symptoms compatible with acute infection
with Borrelia burgdorferi; or with late stage or persistent or chronic
infection with Borrelia burgdorferi, or with complications related to such
an infection.”

It also defines clinical diagnosis as determined by a physician “.that is
based on knowledge obtained through the medical history and physical
examination alone, or in conjunction with the testing that provides
supportive data for such clinical diagnosis.” In addition, it provides for
updating the definition if other strains are found to cause Lyme disease.

The final bill was the result of months of negotiations between Legislative
leaders, the Connecticut Department of Public Health and the undersigned
groups representing patients.

We would like to thank Representatives Jason Bartlett, Kim Fawcett, Chris
Lyddy , Peggy Reeves and all of the legislators who supported this bill.

We would also like to thank the Legislative leadership for taking time from
their busy schedules to meet with us over the past several weeks. We
particularly thank the joint Public Health Committee Chairs, Representative
Betsy Ritter and Senator Jonathan Harris and the Public Health Committee for
understanding this complex issue and its importance to patients in CT.

We would like to extend our appreciation to the patients, families and
members of the Lyme community who wrote letters, made phone calls and
testified in support of H.B. 6200.

We have confidence that the Connecticut Senate will fulfill its commitment
to CT residents and pass this important piece of legislation intact.

Please note this bill has moved from the Public Health Committee; it still
needs to be passed by the House; Senate and Rell; but is big step!

=========================

http://www.newstimes.com/ci_12005818

Controversial Lyme disease bill passed by legislative Public Health
Committee
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer
Updated: 03/26/2009 11:03:49 PM EDT

HARTFORD — The Legislature’s Public Health Committee unanimously passed a
bill about tick-borne Lyme disease Thursday that could rock the health care
industry if it becomes law.

“This is a huge message,” state Rep. Kim Fawcett, D-Fairfield, the bill’s
sponsor, said after the panel approved the proposal without debate.

The proposal would validate the treatment of chronic Lyme disease in
Connecticut. It clarifies to physicians, despite an opinion from the
Infectious Disease Society of America that chronic Lyme disease does not
exist, that they do have the right to diagnose and prescribe long-term
antibiotics for the illness without fear of reprisal by the state.

“The thing that’s important to us is we send a clear message, ‘It’s OK to go
outside the Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines,’” said
Fawcett, who is not a member of the health panel.

Discovered in the mid-1970s in Connecticut, Lyme disease is transmitted to
humans by the bite of infected blacklegged ticks.

Symptoms include fever, headache, fatigue and a rash. If untreated,
infection can spread to joints, the heart and the nervous system.

The commonly accepted treatment is up to 28 days of antibiotics. But some
patients are convinced they suffer from chronic Lyme disease and need longer
courses of antibiotic treatment.

But the Infectious Diseases Society, which in 2006 developed updated
treatment guidelines for doctors, dismisses chronic Lyme disease as
Advertisement
a myth.

“There are no convincing published scientific data that support the
existence of chronic Lyme disease,” Anne Gershon, president of the
Virginia-based society, wrote lawmakers in February.

She wrote that the concept of chronic Lyme disease has been promoted by “a
small group of physicians” but the dangers of long-term antibiotic therapy
are well-documented and should not be encouraged by legislation like the
bill passed by the committee Thursday.

State Rep. Jason Bartlett, D-Bethel, another bill sponsor who sits on the
Public Health Committee, told colleagues Thursday the legislation would
address the dueling “standards for practice” that have arisen over chronic
Lyme disease.

“Because of these two disagreements the (Connecticut) Department of Public
Health, we feel, has been biased towards the 28 days of antibiotics,”
Bartlett said.

He said the result is a “chill effect” on physicians who might otherwise be
willing to diagnose and treat chronic Lyme disease.

Following a public hearing on the bill in early February, William Gerrish, a
spokesman for the health department, said there is no state policy against
long-term antibiotic treatment of Lyme disease.

Gerrish said state health officials are concerned the bill as written would
strip the department of its ability to review complaints and violations,
particularly in cases where the care being provided to a patient deviates
from current, evidence-based practice.

No doctors offered testimony in February that they felt persecuted by the
state health department for treating chronic Lyme disease.

But at the time, Matthew Katz, vice president of the Connecticut State
Medical Society, confirmed there are concerns among physicians over the
state’s recent actions against Dr. Charles Ray Jones, a New Haven
pediatrician renowned for treating chronic Lyme disease.

In December 2007, the state Medical Examining Board, responding to an
investigation by the Department of Public Health, fined Jones $10,000 and
put him on probation for two years for diagnosing children with Lyme disease
and treating them with antibiotics before examining them.

Jones is appealing the decision.

Katz said news coverage focused on the doctor’s reputation as a last resort
for those complaining of chronic Lyme disease.

“What appeared in the paper and on the news — Lyme disease mistreatment –
it raised a lot of concerns,” Katz said at the time.

Fawcett’s bill states that as of July 1, 2009, the Medical Examining Board
may not discipline a licensed physician “solely for” prescribing,
administering and dispensing long-term antibiotic therapy to a patient
clinically diagnosed with Lyme disease as documented in their medical
records.

The State Medical Society backs the concept of the bill, but is not taking a
position on the existence of chronic Lyme disease.

Gerrish said the Department of Public Health is still hoping to work with
the health committee to “preserve our ability to conduct a thorough
investigation to protect the public.”

“That bill is perfect in our eyes,” Fawcett said.

But Health Committee co-chairwoman state Rep. Betsy Ritter, D-Quaker Hill,
told her colleagues before Thursday’s vote the legislation may change before
going to the full General Assembly.

“There will be “at least a bit more work going on with this bill before
we’re finished,” Ritter said.

On 3/27/09 6:06 AM, “Maggie Shaw” <Lancaster60@aol.com> wrote:

Click here: Controversial Lyme disease bill passed by legislative Public
Health Committee – NewsTimes.com <http://www.newstimes.com/ci_12005818>

_____

For more information visit
http://www.lymedisease.com