2016- SENATE BILL 926
Maryland 2016 Session
WE OPPOSE HB 399
&
Its Companion Bill SB 926
***
Introduced By
Delegates Afzali & Young
&
Introduced By
Senator Young
(Delegate Young's Husband)
This bill, originally written for Virginia in 2013,
Failed to Accomplish Its Goals.
As A Result, Another Bill Was Introduced in Virginia (2016)
By The Same People (NatCap Lyme)
In An Attempt To Try To "Fix" Their Original Faulty Bill.
That Bill Is Currently Pending
And Is Not Expected to Pass
Virginia HB 962
UPDATE
HB 962 was poorly written, ill-timed and
Put in motion by those who don't know what they are doing.
Thankfully it did not pass.
MedChi (Maryland Doctors- 7,000 plus members) Opposes the Bills
By: Senator Young
Update- March 28, 2016
Maryland Lyme patients LOST their shirts again thanks to NatCapLyme and the Senate Bill Sponsor, Senator Young, who happens to be married to one of the two House bill sponsors of the Lyme bill, Delegate Young. (A reminder of NASCAR's Joey Logano who said about Kevin Harvick- "It's probably not his fault. His wife wears the firesuit in the family and tells him what to do.")
As predicted, this unnecessary and undesirable bill was changed from its original language with amendments supporting the "other side". It was nearly totally gutted and rewritten- see below- something we haven't seen done to a Lyme bill since 2004. (It would have been easier to just let Hopkins and IDSA have a blank bill to fill out for themselves.)
Added to this bill was an even more dangerous provision allowing the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (aka Hopkins, CDC, IDSA) to make any changes they want to the regulation at any time. (And zippity do dah said the fox as he was given the keys to the hen house.)
"IF THE DEPARTMENT FINDS SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CONTENT OF THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION AND CURRENT MEDICAL EVIDENCE ON LYME DISEASE TESTING, THE DEPARTMENT MAY ADOPT REGULATIONS THAT CHANGE THE CONTENT OF THE NOTICE."
As for your rights, there was another lame compromise- in other words, you lost again. A compromise is perhaps necessary in other situations, but not when your life and the life of your children are at stake. There wouldn't have to be a compromise if the bill had never been introduced and supported/pushed by NatCap Lyme in the first place.
“(D) THE PROVISION BY A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER OR MEDICAL LABORATORY OF THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION MAY NOT BE THE SOLE BASIS FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION.”.
This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for residents to seek legal recourse in the event they are harmed by bad doctors. Lyme bills should NOT take away the rights of the people. This one does.
Bottom line- Introducing and supporting a bill by misrepresenting yourself, being sneaky, conniving, underhanded and non-transparent with the people who will be affected by it, and then lying to and disrespecting those people and others to try to get it passed is just an ugly and yes, stupid and self-promoting thing to do.
UNDERLINES INDICATE ADDITIONS TO THE ORIGINAL BILL
CROSS OUTS INDICATE LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED FROM BILL.
SENATE BILL 926
By: Senator Young Senators Young, Astle, Benson, Feldman, Hershey, Jennings, Kelley, Klausmeier, Mathias, Middleton, Pugh, and Reilly Introduced and read first time: February 5, 2016 Assigned to: Finance Committee Report: Favorable with amendments Senate action: Adopted Read second time: March 25, 2016
AN ACT concerning Lyme Disease – Laboratory Test – Required Notice
FOR the purpose of requiring certain health care providers and certain medical laboratories to provide a certain notice to a patient for whom the health care provider or the medical laboratory orders performs a laboratory test for the presence of Lyme disease; providing immunity from liability, under certain circumstances, for certain health care providers for providing the notice; authorizing the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to adopt certain regulations under certain circumstances; requiring the Department to provide certain written notice to certain committees of the General Assembly before submitting certain regulations for publication in the Maryland Register; prohibiting the provision of a certain notice from being the sole basis for a cause of action; and generally relating to laboratory tests for Lyme disease.
Article – Health – General
Section 20–1701 to be under the new subtitle “Subtitle 17. Lyme Disease Information”
SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND,
That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:
Article – Health – General SUBTITLE 17. LYME DISEASE INFORMATION.
(A) A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER LICENSED IN THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE
THE FOLLOWING NOTICE TO EACH PATIENT FOR WHOM THE HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER ORDERS A LABORATORY TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF LYME DISEASE
WHO DRAWS THE BLOOD OF A PATIENT TO PERFORM A LABORATORY TEST FOR LYME
DISEASE OR A MEDICAL LABORATORY, AS DEFINED IN § 17–201 OF THIS ARTICLE,
THAT PERFORMS A LABORATORY TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF LYME DISEASE SHALL
PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE PATIENT AT THE TIME THE
PATIENT’S BLOOD IS DRAWN:
“YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER HAS ORDERED A LABORATORY TEST FOR THE
PRESENCE OF LYME DISEASE FOR YOU. CURRENT LABORATORY TESTING FOR LYME
DISEASE CAN BE PROBLEMATIC AND STANDARD LABORATORY TESTS OFTEN RESULT
IN FALSE NEGATIVE AND FALSE POSITIVE RESULTS AND, IF DONE TOO EARLY, YOU
MAY NOT HAVE PRODUCED ENOUGH ANTIBODIES TO BE CONSIDERED POSITIVE
BECAUSE YOUR IMMUNE RESPONSE REQUIRES TIME TO DEVELOP ANTIBODIES. IF
YOU ARE TESTED FOR LYME DISEASE AND THE RESULTS ARE NEGATIVE, THIS DOES
NOT NECESSARILY MEAN YOU DO NOT HAVE LYME DISEASE. IF YOU CONTINUE TO
EXPERIENCE UNEXPLAINED SYMPTOMS, YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER AND INQUIRE ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF RETESTING OR INITIAL
OR ADDITIONAL TREATMENT.”.
(B) IF THE DEPARTMENT FINDS SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
CONTENT OF THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION AND
CURRENT MEDICAL EVIDENCE ON LYME DISEASE TESTING, THE DEPARTMENT MAY
ADOPT REGULATIONS THAT CHANGE THE CONTENT OF THE NOTICE.
(C) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE SENATE
FINANCE COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE HEALTH AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE BEFORE SUBMITTING ANY PROPOSED REGULATION UNDER
SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION TO THE MARYLAND REGISTER FOR
PUBLICATION.
(B) A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER WHO PROVIDES THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY
SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL LIABILITY FOR
PROVIDING THE NOTICE UNLESS THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER ACTS WITH GROSS
NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT.
(D) THE PROVISION BY A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER OR MEDICAL
LABORATORY OF THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION MAY
NOT BE THE SOLE BASIS FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION.
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect October 1, 2016.
UPDATE- February 12, 2016- Med-Chi (Maryland State Medical Society) is on record OPPOSING this bill. Click Here.
Oppose SB 926- Some of the Reasons To Oppose SB 926
The Attempt to "Fix-It" Bill in Virginia- Will Maryland be next if this bill passes?
Our Testimony- OPPOSE SB 926
Oppose Bill And They Hang Up On You?
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
PAUSE HERE FOR QUESTIONS- You have to ask yourself why someone would come to Maryland and push a bill that they know has failed miserably in Virginia where it originated and needs further legislative actions to try to fix it? And why would they not mention any of these actions or plans to Maryland doctors, Lyme patients or support groups? Or mention it on their own website where all other legislative actions are announced with great fan fare?
Quote from NatCap Lyme- "Here is why HB 962 is important: In 2013 Lyme patients helped to pass a Virginia law that requires medical professionals who order a Lyme test to disclose in writing, that these tests are known to be problematic and can produce false negatives. NatCapLyme has learned that many health care providers are not following this law."
Link Here- https://www.votervoice.net/NATCAPLYME/campaigns/44073/respond
Bill to try to correct the situation (2016)- https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+sum+HB962
BILL INFO
A BILL ENTITLED
AN ACT concerning
Lyme Disease – Laboratory Test – Required Notice
FOR the purpose of requiring certain health care providers to provide a certain notice to a patient for whom the health care provider orders a laboratory test for the presence of Lyme disease; providing immunity from liability, under certain circumstances, for certain health care providers for providing the notice; and generally relating to laboratory tests for Lyme disease.
BY adding to
Article – Health – General
Section 20–1701 to be under the new subtitle “Subtitle 17. Lyme Disease
Information” Annotated Code of Maryland (2015 Replacement Volume)
SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:
Article – Health – General SUBTITLE 17. LYME DISEASE INFORMATION.
20–1701.
“YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER HAS ORDERED A LABORATORY TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF LYME DISEASE FOR YOU. CURRENT LABORATORY TESTING FOR LYME
EXPLANATION: CAPITALS INDICATE MATTER ADDED TO EXISTING LAW. [Brackets] indicate matter deleted from existing law.
A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER LICENSED IN THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE
(A)
THE FOLLOWING NOTICE TO EACH PATIENT FOR WHOM THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER ORDERS A LABORATORY TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF LYME DISEASE:
*sb0926*
2 SENATE BILL 926
Text Link Here- http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/bills/sb/sb0926F.pdf
SUMMARY
Entitled:
Lyme Disease - Laboratory Test - Required Notice
Sponsored by:
Status:
In the Senate - First Reading Finance
Synopsis: Requiring specified health care providers to provide a specified notice to a patient for whom the health care provider orders a laboratory test for the presence of Lyme disease; and providing immunity from liability, under specified circumstances, for specified health care providers for providing the notice.
Analysis: Not available at this time
All Sponsors: Senator Young
Additional Facts: Cross-filed with: HB0399
Bill File Type: Regular
Effective Date(s): October 1, 2016
Committee(s):
Broad Subject(s): Public Health
Narrow Subject(s): Chemical Tests
Diseases -see also- AIDS; Rabies
Health -see also- Mental Health
Health Occupations -see also- specific health occupations
Liability -see also- Good Samaritan
Negligence -see also- Medical Malpractice
Physicians -see also- Dentists; Med Exmnrs; Psych; etc
Statutes: Article - Health - General
(20-1701)
Link Here- http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=sb0926&stab=01&ys=2016RS
Signed By The Governor With This Wording
Chapter 450
( Senate Bill 926 )
AN ACT concerning
Lyme Disease
–
Laboratory Test
–
Required Notice
FOR the purpose of requiring certain health care providers
and certain medical
laboratories
to provide a certain notice to a patient for whom the health care provider
or the
medical laboratory
orders
performs
a laboratory test for the presence of Lyme
disease;;
providing immunity from liability,, under certain circumstances,, for certai
n
health care providers for providing the notice;;
authorizing the Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene to adopt certain regulations under certain circumstances;;
requiring the Department to provide certain written notice to certain committees of
the Gene
ral Assembly before submitting certain regulations for publication in the
Maryland Register;; prohibiting the provision of a certain notice from being the sole
basis for a cause of action;;
and generally relating to laboratory tests for Lyme
disease..
BY
adding to
Article
–
Health
–
General
Section 20
–
1701 to be under the new subtitle “SSubtitle 17.. Lyme Disease
Information””
Annotated Code of Maryland
(22015 Replacement Volume))
SECTION 1.. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND,,
That the Laws
of Maryland read as follows::
Article
–
Health
–
General
S
UBTITLE
17..
L
YME
D
ISEASE
I
NFORMATION
.
20
–
1701..
(
A
)
A
HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
LICENSED IN THE
S
TATE
SHALL PROVIDE
THE FOLLOWING NOTICE
TO EACH PATIENT FOR
WHOM THE HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER ORDERS A LA
BO
RATORY TEST FOR THE
PRESENCE OF
L
YME DISEASE
WHO DRAWS THE BLOOD
OF A PATIENT TO PERF
ORM A LABORATORY TES
T FOR
L
YME
DISEASE OR A MEDICAL
LABORATORY
,
AS DEFINED IN
§
17
–
201
OF THIS ARTICLE
,
THAT PERFORMS A LABO
RATORY TEST FOR THE
PRESENCE OF
L
YME DISEASE
SHALL
PROVIDE THE FOLLOWIN
G WRITTEN NOTICE TO
THE PATIENT AT THE T
IME THE
PATIENT
’
S BLOOD IS DRAWN
:
“YY
OUR HEALTH CARE PROV
IDER HAS ORDERED A L
ABORATORY TEST FOR T
HE
PRESENCE OF
L
YME DISEASE FOR YOU
.
C
URRENT LABORATORY TE
STING FOR
L
YME
DISEASE CAN BE PROB
LEMATIC AND STANDARD
LABORATORY TESTS OFT
EN RESULT
IN FALSE NEGATIVE AN
D FALSE POSITIVE RES
ULTS AND
,
IF DONE TOO EARLY
,
YOU
MAY NOT HAVE PRODUCE
D ENOUGH ANTIBODIES
TO BE CONSIDERED POS
ITIVE
BECAUSE YOUR IMMUNE
RESPONSE REQUIRES TI
ME TO DEVELOP ANTIBO
DIES
.
I
F
YOU ARE TESTED FOR
L
YME DISEASE AND THE
RESULTS ARE NEGATIVE
,
THIS DOES
NOT NECESSARILY MEAN
YOU DO NOT HAVE
L
YME DISEASE
.
I
F YOU CONTINUE TO
EXPERIENCE UNEXPLAIN
ED SYMPTOMS
,
YOU SHOULD CONTACT Y
OUR HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER AND INQUIRE
ABOUT THE APPROPRIAT
E
NESS OF RETESTING OR
INITIAL
OR
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT
.””..
(
B
)
I
F THE
D
EPARTMENT FINDS SIGN
IFICANT DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE
CONTENT OF THE NOTIC
E REQUIRED BY SUBSEC
TION
(
A
)
OF THIS SECTION AND
CURRENT MEDICAL EVID
ENCE ON
L
YME DISEASE TESTING
,
THE
D
EPARTMENT
MAY
ADOPT REGULATIONS TH
AT CHANGE THE CONTEN
T OF THE NOTICE
.
(
C
)
T
HE
D
EPARTMENT SHALL PROV
IDE WRITTEN NOTICE T
O THE
S
ENATE
F
INANCE
C
OMMITTEE AND THE
H
OUSE
H
EALTH AND
G
OVERNMENT
O
PERATIONS
C
OMMITTEE BEFORE SUBM
ITTING ANY PROPOSED
REGULATION UNDER
SUBSECTI
ON
(
B
)
OF THIS SECTION TO T
HE
M
ARYLAND
R
EGISTER FOR
PUBLICATION
.
(
B
)
A
HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
WHO PROVIDES THE NOT
ICE REQUIRED BY
SUBSECTION
(
A
)
OF THIS SECTION SHAL
L BE IMMUNE FROM CIV
IL LIABILITY FOR
PROVIDING THE NOTICE
UNLESS THE HEALTH CA
RE PROVIDER
ACTS WITH GROSS
NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFU
L MISCONDUCT
.
(
D
)
T
HE PROVISION BY A HE
ALTH CARE PROVIDER O
R MEDICAL
LABORATORY OF THE NO
TICE REQUIRED BY SUB
SECTION
(
A
)
OF THIS SECTION MAY
NOT BE THE SOLE BASI
S FOR A CAUSE OF ACT
ION
.
SECTION 2.. AND BE IT FURTHER
ENACTED,, That this Act shall take effect
October 1,, 2016..
Approved by the Governor,, May 10,, 2016..