Maryland HB-2
(Update- It appears NatCap not only pushed a legislator to introduce a bill that was already a law in Maryland, it made the same mistake in Virginia. Both bills (MD & VA) were killed instantly, which can't feel good to a legislator. If you want to play with politics and our lives you must first know the facts, do the research and educate ALL legislators.)
Maryland bill, HB 2, was pre-filed early in the summer, which was months prior to the legislative session beginning. The bill requires the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to "collect and keep a record of the number of Lyme disease cases reported each year."
Mandatory reporting for Lyme disease already exists in Maryland (and Virginia) and the number of reported cases has been tallied (by county and state) and sent to the CDC each year, as required. Therefore, the purpose of this bill and reasoning behind it is unclear. Members of the Lyme Disease Education and Support Groups of Maryland have not made attempts to communicate with the sponsor or others concerning this totally unnecessary and inappropriate bill that was introduced. It appears to be another bill prompted by the NatCap Lyme group in its attempt to get "a bill" passed, no matter the contents.
It appears from the video below that the bill's sponsor, Karen Montgomery, believes doctors should be reporting more cases of Lyme disease. Additionally, she feels Lyme patients should actively involve themselves in how a physician handles their day-to-day business and office practices by telling doctors to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements.
She states as the reasoning behind this bill: "The problem we are having are the doctors are not reporting it. When they don't report it there is no record of it."
She goes on to state: "If he [doctor] treats you right away encourage him to please report it, as he should be doing, but often doctors are too busy to do it."
It is our opinion that it is not the patient's responsibility to involve themselves in the doctor's clerical, office or business practices, or try to make a doctor comply with Maryland DHMH and CDC reporting requirements. In fact, the DHMH and CDC are responsible for monitoring doctors reports and taking appropriate measures if they are not following appropriate mandates, laws or regulations. To date they have failed miserably in this job.
To understand why some doctors are not reporting cases, below are some justified concerns.
1. Doctors who do report Lyme disease are often targeted by the insurance companies, Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) members and supporters (Johns Hopkins, et al), the IDSA Guideline authors (Johns Hopkins, et al), Medical Boards, Health Departments and others. Official, confidential case reports have been reviewed and shared with some of the above listed people and subsequently, reports have been generated by officials, such as Ben Beard of the CDC. These reports were generated to interfere with a specific doctor's practices because of their unique and successful diagnostic and treatment methods that did not follow IDSA recommendations. These type of reports have been responsible for some of the pressure doctors feel and are seen as scare tactics to keep doctors from treating chronically ill Lyme disease patients.
2. If the "number" of reported Lyme cases becomes alarming, as we've recently seen, the CSTE, with help from the IDSA/CDC, simply adjusts the reporting criteria to discard cases that otherwise would be reported as Lyme disease. This falsely lowers the case numbers and is not an incentive for doctors to do the additional paper work required.
3. "Numbers" are often used to justify government grants and private funding for projects. In the case of Lyme disease, over $86,000,000.00 was awarded by the NIH (ie, Phil Baker) to IDSA supporters who contend there is no such thing as "chronic Lyme disease" and recommend patients not receive more than a minimum of treatment for acute Lyme. Phil Baker, once responsible for overseeing NIH Lyme grants, upon retiring from the NIH, skirted through the revolving doors and took a position as the Executive Director of the IDSA-friendly organization, the American Lyme Disease Foundation (ALDF). The ALDF is an organization comprised of IDSA Lyme Guideline authors and other IDSA supporters. When these questionable practices are rampant and allowed to go unchecked in spite of the complaints, there is no incentive to support the "system", comply with rules or make yourself a target.
***
The NatCap Lyme group is referred to by attorneys in a lengthy report discussing a bill concerning reporting of Lyme cases in Virginia (one like the group members promoted in Maryland that was unnecessary).
"In Virginia, a highly organized advocacy group, known as the National Capital Lyme & Tick-Borne Disease Association (“NatCapLyme”), played a critical role in gaining support and patronage for five Lyme disease-related bills...
The one remaining bill that was not incorporated in House Bill 512, and was thus heard alone by the House Health, Welfare and Institutions Subcommittee meeting, was House Bill 36, sponsored by Delegate Robert G. Marshall of the 13th District.
Delegate Marshall’s bill sought to require that Lyme disease be included among the Virginia Board of Health’s list of reportable diseases. The Medical Society opposed this bill as well, arguing that House Bill 36 was duplicative of already existing law.
Specifically, the Medical Society pointed out in oral testimony that Delegate Marshall’s proposed statutory requirement was unnecessary, since the Health Board’s regulations already require that certain health care providers report Lyme disease to specified health agencies.
The Subcommittee ultimately agreed with this conclusion and recommended tabling the bill by a voice vote."
Link Here- http://rjolpi.richmond.edu/archive/Volume_XIV_Issue_1.pdf
***
Karen Montgomery speaks on her Lyme bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t4OV80nLEM
UPDATE- (3/23) As reported by the official website, the bill received an Unfavorable Report in Committee and was withdrawn.
HB 2
http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/hb0002.htm
Fiscal and Policy Note
http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/fnotes/bil_0002/hb0002.pdf
House Action
7/13
Pre-filed
1/13
First Reading Health and Government Operations
1/20
Hearing 2/2 at 1:00 p.m.
1/27
Hearing cancelled
Hearing 2/2 at 2:00 p.m.
3/23
Unfavorable Report by Health and Government Operations Withdrawn
Senate Action
No Action
EXPLANATION: CAPITALS INDICATE MATTER ADDED TO EXISTING LAW.
[Brackets] indicate matter deleted from existing law.
*hb0002*
HOUSE BILL 2
J1 0lr0319
(PRE–FILED)
By: Delegate Montgomery
Requested: July 13, 2009
Introduced and read first time: January 13, 2010
Assigned to: Health and Government Operations
A BILL ENTITLED
AN ACT concerning
1
Public Health – Lyme Disease – Record of Reported Cases
2
FOR the purpose of requiring the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene to collect
3
and keep a record of the number of Lyme disease cases reported each year
4
under certain provisions of law; and generally relating to the monitoring of
5
Lyme disease in the State.
6
BY adding to
7
Article – Health – General
8
Section 18–111
9
Annotated Code of Maryland
10
(2009 Replacement Volume)
11
SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
12
MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:
13
Article – Health – General
14
18–111.
15
THE SECRETARY SHALL COLLECT AND KEEP A RECORD OF THE NUMBER
16
OF LYME DISEASE CASES REPORTED EACH YEAR IN THE STATE UNDER §§
17
18–201, 18–202, AND 18–205 OF THIS TITLE.
18
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect
19
October 1, 2010.
20