Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:16 am (PST)
Hello friends,
I am looking forward to meeting some of you in Annapolis later today.
Let me explain what I know of how HB290 came to be:
A constituent of Delegate Pena Melnyk who has a bad case of Lyme and who is
being treated by an LLMD here in MD who has been investigated by the Board
of Physicians approached her to help the LLMD get fair treatment from the
Board. (While I am one of her consituents, I was not the one who requested
the bill. She asked for my input because I am fairly well known in our
community and my illness resulted in a front page article in the Laurel
Leader that was very helpful for Lyme education.)
When she found out about what the LLMD had gone through, learned of the
IDSA's egregious behavior, and learned of the CT Bill, she decided to
introduce a similar bill here in MD. I had heard from some folks on this list that
they believed that such a bill was not needed. I passed those sentiments
along to her - but the Delegate - who sits on the committee that has
oversight of this matter - was unconvinced, wanting doctors in MD to have the
same protections as those in CT. She met repeatedly with the Board of
Physicians and was NOT reassured that they would not prosecute an LLMD.
She had the legislation drafting office come up with language for a bill -
the initial draft of which was unacceptable on many levels. Some of you
have no doubt seen it and responded based on that language. There is new
language now, that I only received myself moments ago (though I did know it
was being re-worked.) The new language was based on guidance the Delgate
received from NatCapLyme and it is supposed to be equal to the CT bill. I
don't know enough to be able to evaluate whether it is or isn't having just
seen it.
In any case, I'd like the record here to reflect that Delegate Pena Melnyk
and her staff are doing what they think they should to help the Lyme
community. Not everyone will agree with their approach, which is fine and the
way the system should work, but I am hopeful that the outcome of today is
that we can win friends for our cause by educating members of the House of
Delegates on the issue that is so important to us all. I have worked with
Delegate Pena Melnyk on another issue. I can tell you she is an honest and
passionate leader and a rising political force in the House. She is someone
we want to have as a friend as the years unfold.
I believe what the Committee needs to hear from us is that:
1) Lab tests are unreliable
2) Long term ABX do work.
3) LLMD's are far too rare and feel they must practice in secrecy - but
those who have the courage to provide the treatment we need are literally
gifts from heaven to those of us who have been ravaged by this disease.
I would trust everyone would agree on those points.
The bill's chances of passage appear slight - but our opportunity to
educate is something I think we must seize.
I expect to be one of the first witnesses to testify today - and all I plan
to do is tell my story of nearly total recovery from a severe case of Lyme
thru the compassionate and wise care of an LLMD who found the right
combinations of long term ABX.
Thanks for listening.
Pastor Kevin McGhee
Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:47 pm (PST)
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Hello again everyone,
Let me give just a brief report of the hearing today.
Testimony was given by Delegate Pena Melnyk, who did a great job educating her colleagues on the differences between ILADS and IDSA, myself, an LLMD, and 2 other Lyme sufferers. The Delegate had provided each of her colleagues with a lime colored folder with extensive documentation that refutes the IDSA approach.
We were opposed by a doctor from Hopkins and then the head of the MD Board of Physicians (Mr. Irv Pinder).
I thought the testimony by all the Lymies went extremely well. The delegates heard three different stories with a common theme - without the treatment of LLMD's, we would all have been completely without hope. Delegate Pena Melnyk was very aggressive in questioning the doctor from Hopkins. That was fun to watch!
There were several good questions from the Delegates for all the witnesses.
The most significant interchange took place with Mr. Pinder who has now formally stated (re-stated) that the Board will NOT pursue physicians in MD for making clinical diagnosis/ using long term ABX. The Delegates invited, and he was receptive to, a more thorough program of outreach to the Lyme community to remove the "chill" that prevents physicians from providing this type of care.
I hope to have more to report on this soon - in the meantime, the consensus of the day seemed to be that if the Board of Physicians will follow through with this approach, the bill will be unnecessary.
The most common remark I heard from Delegates speaking to Joseline Pena Melnyk after the hearing was that they had "learned a lot today."
Overall, I thought it was a good day with much education achieved.
Pastor Kevin McGhee