Bad Move- Playing With People's Lives
New York Bill- Situation Worse Now
When inexperienced people go up against politicians they typically make a mess of things, as has happened here, once again, in the Lyme Community. The problem in this case is when the politically inept were shot down they took the lives of sick patients and those who will be ill in the future down with them. They also further jeopardized the practices and livelihood's of the few treating Lyme doctors in NY and have put them in the direct line of fire.
When a small group of what can be described as self promoting yahoos begin kicking those who warn them that the actions being taken are dangerous and they should not move forward with a bill or face serious consequences, it is a sad thing.
You do NOT allow legislators or the Governor to add amendments to a bill without knowing what it will say. If you do it is like handing bad guys a blank check with your signature already on it.
Members of the NY Lyme Coalition and supporters include the Hudson Valley Lyme Disease Association (Ira and Jill Auerbach), Lyme Disease Association (LDA), Lyme Research Alliance (Diane Blanchard), Tick Borne Disease Alliance (David Roth), National Capital Lyme (Monte/Greg Skull), NY Voices of Lyme, Empire State Lyme Disease Association and as listed below- (linked here- http://www.nyclymesupport.org/cuomo.htm )
The organizations that have been working on getting this bill passed and signed are:
New York State Coalition on Lyme and Tick-borne Diseases
Members, in alphabetical order:
Empire State Lyme Disease Association www.empirestatelymediseaseassociation.org
Hudson Valley Lyme Disease Association
www.lymediseaseassociation.org/index.php/about-us/lda-associated-organizations-/hudson-valley-ldab
Lyme Action Network
Lyme Alliance of the Berkshires
www.berkshirelyme.blogspot.com
New York City Lyme Disease Support Group
Tick Borne Disease Alliance
National organizations supporting Bill S7854/A7558B:
Lyme Disease Association, Inc.
www.lymediseaseassociation.org
LymeDisease.org (formerly known as CALDA)
Lyme disease bill stalls with Cuomo staff review
Mary Beth Pfeiffer, Poughkeepsie Journal 6:56 p.m. EST December 2, 2014
Five months after passing unanimously in the Legislature — and a month after Gov. Andrew Cuomo said he wanted to sign it — a bill to protect doctors who treat Lyme disease with longer courses of antibiotics faces an uncertain future.
Senate and Assembly sponsors don't know why the bill, which passed the Assembly May 12 and the Senate June 18, remains unsigned.
Read more: Gibson, Maloney push Cuomo to sign bill
"I don't have a direct response to your question as to what the holdup is," said Sen. Kemp Hannon, R-Nassau County, Senate Health Committee chairman and prime sponsor.
"I would love to be able to answer you but I don't know," agreed Nick Melson, staff chief for Assemblywoman Didi Barrett, D-Millbrook, the Assembly sponsor.
In a meeting with the Poughkeepsie Journal editorial board Oct. 29, Cuomo expressed qualified support for the bill, saying of the tick-borne disease, "My kids have had it. I lost a dog because of it. It's a terrible disease."
But he said there were technical issues — "in the weeds," he termed it — that his counsel needed to sort through. The governor's office would not discuss those issues last week.
"The bill is still under review," said Rich Azzopardi, Cuomo's spokesman. "Many groups have expressed opinions about the bill, and they are all being considered carefully."
In conversations with legislative staff, Cuomo's office has asked questions that suggest, as Hannon put it, that "new people" may be trying to understand the bill. But a key legislative source characterized such inquiries as perhaps "questioning the need for and underpinning of the bill," while another source said the holdup most certainly means the bill will be subject to change.
Advocates worried
The signing delay is a source of worry for advocates of Lyme treatment reform, who fear that any amendment "can change the entire intent of the bill," said Jill Auerbach, chairperson of the Hudson Valley Lyme Disease Association. Patient activists and some physicians think the Lyme spirochete can survive antibiotic treatment of four weeks, the upper limit suggested in guidelines of the Infectious Disease Society of America, which has been a key opponent of such legislation.
The bill would protect Lyme doctors who sometimes have found themselves subject to lengthy and expensive investigations over longer-term antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease. No physician should be investigated or charged by state licensing officials, the bill states, "based solely upon the recommendation or provision of a treatment ... that is not universally accepted" by medicine. The legislation applies "but is not limited to" Lyme disease care.
Melson said he spoke recently with Sandi Toll, an assistant counsel to Cuomo, and was told only that Cuomo's office is "looking at the legislation carefully." Toll did not return phone calls or emails.
Ironically, the bill merely ratifies a state policy adopted in 2005, a year after Gov. George Pataki vetoed legislation similar to the pending bill. The policy said it was not the intention of the state physician discipline office "to identify, investigate or charge a physician ... based solely on that practitioner's recommendation" of a particular treatment so long as it was effective.
But advocates of the bill said the memo was largely ignored, which is why they are so leery of the signing delay. The legislation also is opposed by the state Association of County Health Officials, including Dutchess Health Commissioner Kari Reiber.
Patients shunned
The governor's comments have prompted a mobilized Lyme disease constituency to ask supporters to go to a webpage on the Voter Voice website — www.cuomo123.com— where they can urge Cuomo to sign the bill as is. As of Monday, 3,854 people had written to the governor.
"This bill would allow practitioners to act in the best interest of the patient without fear of punishment from the professional discipline system," the letter states. Lyme patients have contended that some physicians shun them out of fear of attracting attention from the state disciplinary oversight office.
Under legislative rules, until Dec. 31 the governor has 10 days to sign a bill once it officially hits his desk —the Lyme bill hasn't so long as his counsel continues to review it — or it becomes law even without a signature. After Dec. 31, an unsigned bill is considered vetoed after 10 days.
If legislative officials agree to a negotiated amendment, the revised bill would have to be passed early in the next legislative session, legislative officials said.
Mary Beth Pfeiffer: mbpfeiff@poughkeepsiejournal.com; 845-437-4869. Twitter: @marybethpf
More information
To weigh in on legislation to protect Lyme-treating physicians, go to www.cuomo123.com.
To read stories from the Poughkeepsie Journal's series on Lyme disease, visit http://pojonews.co/lyme.
(Photo: Chris Cusumano / Poughkeepsie Journal)
1827
CONNECT
13
COMMENT
MORE
posted 12-06-2014 12:46 PM
The NYS Senate sent the Lyme Disease Patient Rights/Doctor Protection bill to Governor Cuomo yesterday!
Forwarded letter from Jill Auerbach, Chair of the Hudson Valley Lyme Disease Association:
Dear Friends and Affiliates,
From what I understand the Senate sent the bill to Governor Cuomo yesterday at about 4:30pm.
It has 10 days (Dec. 17th) from when it reaches his desk to be:
1. signed
2. vetoed
3. if nothing is done it automatically becomes law
4. the last option is the Governor can add a memo, which would mean an agreement to amend and the exact wording of it would have been set NOW. The agreed upon amendment would be passed the beginning of 2015.
I think you all are aware that Governor Cuomo indicated to the Poughkeepsie Journal Editoral staff, that he would like number 4.
At that point we changed our messages to him including the e-mail at Voter Voice (www.cuomo123.com) to state "NO AMENDMENTS." That gave our sponsors who negotiate in Albany with his Counsel support and more power.
At this point in time, we do not wish to play chicken with Governor Cuomo. Our sponsors (Assembly member Didi Barrett, Senator Kemp Hannon, Chair of Senate Health Committee + Assemblyman Gottfried, Chair of the Assembly Health Committee) are the ones who are representing us. We could not have a more knowledgeable group when it comes to NYS Health Law. They will NOT allow the bill to be diluted or the intent under mined in any manner. They would have it vetoed before they would allow that to occur!
At this point, we must trust them to do what is possible, and if they decide to satisfy Cuomo's wish to have something altered that will not in any manner change the intent, then we must allow that to occur. Thus we are changing our message to: "SIGN THE BILL" we are removing the no amendment message now that it has reached this critical point.
It seems even out of state people can send an e-mail to Governor Cuomo at http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact
Below my signature is a sample letter. Put a message of your own at the top.
Jill Auerbach
Hudson Valley Lyme Disease Association, Chairperson
NYS Coalition on Lyme and Tick-borne Disease, Member
"What's the problem? Well it's the ticks of course!"
------------- Sample letter below ------------
Add at least one sentence of your own here, such as:
I am concerned because I (or my child, or friend) have Lyme disease, or I was turned away by doctors (how many), or I waited # months for an appointment, or I had to travel this far # to get to a doctor (out of state?), or any other hardships you can think of because of this antiquated position vis a vis Lyme.
THEN YOU CAN ADD THIS
I am pleased to hear you are in support of crucial Lyme disease legislation S07854 and A07558B, which currently sits before you. I am writing to urge you to sign the Lyme Bill into law. The lives of thousands of depend on it. This legislation will enhance options for seeking treatment for Lyme disease in New York State. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that there are 300,000 new cases of Lyme disease each year, roughly ten times higher than what was previously reported. Based on this estimate, more than 60,000 New York state residents contracted Lyme disease in 2013. When left untreated, or under-treated, victims of this disease can suffer extremely incapacitating illnesses that can lead to significant health care costs and reduced economic productivity.
The proliferation of Lyme disease is a complicated and threatening medical crisis, especially in New York. If we are ever to unravel the complexities of Lyme disease and find a cure, it is ultimately good science that will lead the way. In truth, that kind of good, decisive science probably is years away. But one thing is certain. One fact that is statistical and terrible and true is that a meaningful number of people (up to twenty percent or more of those treated for Lyme disease) do not get better after the recommended treatment. And many of those people go on to develop chronic, disabling conditions that may last a lifetime. I am asking you to support legislative action that protects patients' rights to work with physicians, and with their consent, receive the treatment of their choice. The bill that I am asking you to sign is exactly this kind of legislation. This bill would allow practitioners to act in the best interest of the patient without fear of punishment from the professional discipline system.
As you decide whether to support this bill, I ask that you think about what it must be like to be a patient who suffers with this illness. Try to imagine if it was you or your child. Please put your support behind this legislation to ensure that the growing number of sufferers of Lyme receive the treatment and recognition they deserve.
Thank you for your support.
(Your signature)
--------------------
KarlaL
Posts: 331 | From New Lebanon, NY | Registered: Dec 2010 | IP: Logged |
posted 01-24-2015 04:04 PM
Update on the Chapter Amendment to the NYS Lyme Disease Patient Rights/Doctor Protection Law
General Information
The amended Lyme Disease Patient Rights/Doctor Protection Bill has
been introduced in both houses of the NYS legislature
(A2554-2015, S1693-2015).
It is our understanding that the legislature is not fully active and
so we are not sure how long it will be before they are passed
and signed into law.
On January 21st, 2015, the NYS Senate Rules Committee
unanimously approved S1693. It is on the calendar to be
voted on by the full NYS Senate on January 22nd and January 26th, 2015. The sponsor is NYS Senator Kemp Hannon.
The companion bill to S1693, A2554 was introduced in the NYS
Assembly on January 20th, 2015 and was referred to the
Committee on Health. The sponsor is NYS Assemblywoman Didi Barrett.
Understanding the Changes in the Amended Bill
1) If OPMC determines that the complaint is based upon a
treatment modality, under the amended law, no further review
shall be conducted and no charges shall be brought.
"BY THE CONCLUSION OF A PRELIMINARY REVIEW,
INCLUDING AN INTERNAL CLINICAL REVIEW,
THE DIRECTOR SHALL DETERMINE IF A
REPORT IS BASED SOLELY UPON THE
RECOMMENDATION OR PROVISION OF
A TREATMENT MODALITY BY A LICENSEE
THAT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED
BY THE MEDICAL PROFESSION, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO VARYING MODALITIES
USED IN THE TREATMENT OF LYME DISEASE
OR OTHER TICK-BORNE DISEASES."
"UPON A DETERMINATION BY THE DIRECTOR
THAT A REPORT IS BASED SOLELY UPON THE
PROVISION OF A TREATMENT MODALITY THAT
IS NOT UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED, NO FURTHER
REVIEW SHALL BE CONDUCTED AND NO CHARGES
SHALL BE BROUGHT. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION
SHALL PRECLUDE THE DIRECTOR FROM MAKING
SUCH A DETERMINATION EARLIER IN,
OR SUBSEQUENT TO, A PRELIMINARY REVIEW."
2) The amended bill is retroactive and will apply
to all investigations and cases that are open when
the bill is signed into law.
"This act shall take effect immediately and shall
apply to any professional discipline matter or
administrative or judicial review thereof
pending on or after the date on which this
act shall take effect; provided, however, that
the amendments to subparagraph
(i) of paragraph (a) of subdivision 10 of
section 230 of the public health law made
by section two of this act shall not
affect the expiration of such paragraph
and shall be deemed to expire therewith."
3) An updated memo makes clear that the
goal of the law is to restore balance to the
current system of physician reporting in order to:
"ensure that patients seeking and receiving
effective treatment from licensees,
that may not be universally accepted
by the medical community, can get the
care they seek, while at the same time
insuring that OPMC's role in identifying
and responding to concerns or complaints
of misconduct by licensees continues to
be strong and protective of our health care system as it should."
In other words the OPMC will still be able
to investigate cases of medical misconduct,
but it will make it more difficult for competitors
and insurance companies to abuse the systems
of physician reporting by selectively reporting
physician's treating Lyme patients in an attempt
to harass and intimidate them.
Thanks to everyone who worked so hard to
bring this very important bill to fruition!
KarlaL
Bill S1693-2015
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S1693-2015
Relates to the identification, charging, reporting and
investigation of charges of professional misconduct
by health care professionals
Details
Same as: A2554-2015
Versions S1693-2015
Sponsor: Hannon
Law Section: Public Health Law
Law: Amd §230, Pub Health L
Actions
Jan 21, 2015: ORDERED TO THIRD READING CAL.26
Jan 14, 2015: REFERRED TO RULES
Meetings
Rules: Jan 21, 2015
Calendars
Floor Calendar: Jan 21, 2015
Floor Calendar: Jan 22, 2015
Floor Calendar: Jan 26, 2015
Votes
VOTE: COMMITTEE VOTE: - Rules - Jan 21, 2015
Ayes (24): Skelos, DeFrancisco, Bonacic, Carlucci, Farley,
Flanagan, Hannon, Golden, LaValle, Little, Marcellino,
Nozzolio, Seward, Valesky, Young, Stewart-Cousins,
Breslin, Dilan, Espaillat, Gianaris, Hassell-Thompson,
Krueger, Montgomery, Perkins
Excused (1): Parker
Memo
BILL NUMBER:S1693 REVISED MEMO 01/21/2015
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the public health
law, in relation to identification, charging,
reporting and investigation of charges of professional
misconduct by health care professionals
PURPOSE:
A law adopted in December 2014 codified a nine (9)
year old policy used by the Office of Professional Conduct
(OPMC) for matters about New York physicians.
The purpose of this longstanding policy, and the
enactment into law was to continue an appropriate
response to complaints about physicians and to
promote effective care of patients, while allowing
varying modalities used in treatment, including
treatment of tick-borne diseases such as Lyme,
even if that effective treatment had not achieved
universal acceptance by all physicians. This chapter
amendment assures preliminary review of the
facts and circumstances of all complaints,
a process currently carried out under OPMC protocols.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 amends subdivision 9-b of section 230
of the public health law to clarify that investigations
by OPMC of complaints based solely upon the
recommendation or provision of a treatment
modality to a particular patient that is not
universally accepted shall be limited to a preliminary review.
It also preserves OPMCs ability to identify such cases.
Section 2 amends subdivision 10 of section 230
of the public health law to clarify that once a
preliminary review, including an internal clinical review,
is done as a result of a complaint, OPMC shall
determine if the complaint was based solely upon
the recommendation or provision of a treatment
modality that effectively treats human disease,
pain, injury, deformity or physical condition for
which the licensee is treating a patient but is not
universally accepted by the medical community.
If OPMC determines that is the case, no further
review shall be conducted and no charges shall be brought.
OPMC may make such determination prior to the
conclusion of the preliminary review. Finally, the bill
re-states that "the licensee shall otherwise abide
by all other applicable professional requirements,"
to ensure OPMCs continued strong role in protecting the public.
Section 3 sets forth the effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
Both houses of the legislature unanimously
approved legislation (S 7854/A 7558-B) in
June, 2014 which codified OPMC internal
policy written in 2005 prohibiting the identification,
investigation or charging of a practitioner based
solely on their recommendation or provision of
a treatment modality that is currently not
universally accepted by the medical community,
but that effectively treats human disease, pain,
injury, deformity or physical condition.
That OPMC guidance, like the legislation, was
based on existing law governing the practice of
medicine (Article 131 of the Education Law) and
specifically section 6527 paragraph 4 of the
Education Law which clarifies that the Article
shall not be construed to, among other things,
affect or prevent the physician's use of
"whatever medical care, conventional or
non-conventional, which effectively treats
human disease, pain, injury, deformity or physical condition."
This original legislation was signed into law in
December, 2014 with the understanding that the
amendments contained in this bill would be
adopted as a chapter amendment to further
clarify and address concerns that were raised.
More specifically, this bill ensures that the OPMC
may investigate all complaints as it is mandated to do,
ensuring that patient treatment is appropriate and effective.
However, this bill provides that such investigation
shall be limited to a preliminary review, which
may include an internal clinical review, where
such complaint or report is based solely upon
the recommendation or provision of a treatment
modality that is not universally accepted by
the medical profession, including but not limited
to treatment of Lyme disease and other tick borne diseases.
This bill further clarifies that by the conclusion of
a preliminary review by OPMC, a determination
shall be made as to whether the complaint is based
solely upon a treatment modality that is not universally
accepted but is effective in treating the condition the
licensee is treating a particular patient for and, if that
is the case, no further review nor any charges shall be brought.
As clearly stated in this bill, the original legislation,
and OPMC's own 2005 guidance, the treatment
modality that is recommended or provided must be
one that "effectively treats human disease, pain,
injury, deformity or physical condition."
This legislation provides the appropriate balance
to ensure that patients seeking and receiving
effective treatment from licensees, that may
not be universally accepted by the medical
community, can get the care they seek,
while at the same time insuring that OPMC's
role in identifying and responding to concerns
or complaints of misconduct by licensees
continues to be strong and protective of
our health care system as it should.
This bill, like the original, affirmatively states
that the licensee shall otherwise abide by all
other applicable professional requirements.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
This is an amendment to Chapter 532 of the laws of 2014.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This bill shall take effect immediately and shall
apply to any professional discipline matter or
administrative or judicial review thereof pending
on or after the date on which this act takes effect;
provided amendments to section 230 PHL made
by section 2 of the bill shall expire therewith.
Text
STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
1693
2015-2016 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
January 14, 2015
Introduced by Sen. HANNON -- read twice and
ordered printed, and when printed to be committed
to the Committee on Rules
AN ACT to amend the public health law,
in relation to identification, charging,
reporting and investigation of charges of
professional misconduct by health care professionals
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subdivision 9-b of section 230 of
the public health law, as added by chapter 532
of the laws of 2014, is amended to read as follows:
9-b. Neither the board for professional medical conduct
nor the office of professional medical conduct shall [identify,]
charge A LICENSEE WITH MISCONDUCT AS DEFINED IN
SECTIONS SIXTY-FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY AND
SIXTY-FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE OF THE
EDUCATION LAW, or cause a report made to
the director of such office to be investigated
BEYOND A PRELIMINARY REVIEW AS SET
FORTH IN CLAUSE (A) OF SUBPARAGRAPH
(I) OF PARAGRAPH (A) OF SUBDIVISION
TEN OF THIS SECTION, WHERE SUCH REPORT
IS DETERMINED TO BE based solely upon the
recommendation or provision of a treatment
modality TO A PARTICULAR PATIENT by
[a] SUCH licensee that is not universally
accepted by the medical profession,
including but not limited to, varying modalities
used in the treatment of Lyme disease and
other tick-borne diseases.
[As used in this subdivision the term "licensee"
shall mean a physician, physician's assistant,
and specialist's assistant.]
When a licensee, acting in accordance with
paragraph e of subdivision four of section
sixty-five hundred twenty-seven of the
education law, recommends or provides a
treatment modality that effectively treats
human disease, pain, injury, deformity or
physical condition FOR WHICH THE LICENSEE
IS TREATING A PATIENT, the recommendation
or provision of that modality TO A PARTICULAR
PATIENT shall not, by itself, constitute professional
misconduct.
[This prohibition shall not exonerate such licensee
from otherwise applicable professional requirements]
EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored)
is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted.
THE LICENSEE SHALL OTHERWISE ABIDE BY ALL
OTHER APPLICABLE PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
S 2. Subparagraph (i) of paragraph
(a) of subdivision 10 of section 230 of
the public health law, is amended by
chapter 542 of the laws of 2000,
is amended to read as follows:
(i) (A) The board for professional medical
conduct, by the director of the office of
professional medical conduct, may
investigate on its own any suspected
professional misconduct, and shall investigate
each complaint received regardless of the source.
BY THE CONCLUSION OF A PRELIMINARY REVIEW,
INCLUDING AN INTERNAL CLINICAL REVIEW,
THE DIRECTOR SHALL DETERMINE IF A
REPORT IS BASED SOLELY UPON THE
RECOMMENDATION OR PROVISION OF
A TREATMENT MODALITY BY A LICENSEE
THAT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BY
THE MEDICAL PROFESSION, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO VARYING MODALITIES
USED IN THE TREATMENT OF LYME DISEASE
OR OTHER TICK-BORNE DISEASES.
UPON A DETERMINATION BY THE DIRECTOR THAT
A REPORT IS BASED SOLELY UPON THE PROVISION
OF A TREATMENT MODALITY THAT IS NOT
UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED, NO FURTHER REVIEW
SHALL BE CONDUCTED AND NO CHARGES SHALL
BE BROUGHT. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL
PRECLUDE THE DIRECTOR FROM MAKING SUCH
A DETERMINATION EARLIER IN, OR SUBSEQUENT
TO, A PRELIMINARY REVIEW.
(B) The director of the office of professional
medical conduct shall cause a preliminary
review of every report made to the department
pursuant to section twenty-eight hundred
three-e as added by chapter eight hundred
sixty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred
eighty, sections twenty-eight hundred five-l
and forty-four hundred five-b of this chapter,
and section three hundred fifteen of the
insurance law, to determine if such report
reasonably appears to reflect physician
conduct warranting further investigation
pursuant to this subparagraph.
S 3. This act shall take effect immediately
and shall apply to any professional discipline
matter or administrative or judicial review
thereof pending on or after the date on
which this act shall take effect; provided,
however, that the amendments to subparagraph
(i) of paragraph (a) of subdivision 10 of section
230 of the public health law made by section
two of this act shall not affect the expiration
of such paragraph and shall be deemed to expire therewith.
[ 01-29-2015, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: KarlaL ]
--------------------
KarlaL
Posts: 331 | From New Lebanon, NY | Registered: Dec 2010 | IP: Logged |
Link Here: http://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/8/3207
"I ask that you not get upset about what was posted on the LDA web site, they do not have the facts and were not involved."
TOTALLY FALSE STATEMENT BELOW! EXPERIENCED PEOPLE ASSISTING WITH THIS EFFORT FROM THE BEGINNING (BY INVITATION) WERE CURSED, HARASSED AND TREATED LIKE GARBAGE BY THE BULLIES WHO ARE STILL HANGING OUT THERE SUPPORTING THIS TRASH BILL IF THEY DISAGREED WITH ANYTHING THE BULLIES WANTED, LIKE PASSING A BILL JUST FOR THE SAKE OF PASSING A BILL.
posted 02-06-2015 12:29 PM
Dear Friends and Associates,
I ask that you not get upset about what was posted on the LDA web site, they do not have the facts and were not involved. It will be answered by the NYS Coalition on Lyme and Tick-borne Disease who were directly involved and worked diligently on this.
This is what was posted on the LDA web site: http://www.lymediseaseassociation.org/index.php/lda-news-a-updates/1316-lyme-protection-amendment-may-hurt-ny-doctors
This is what I wrote in response when it was posted:
"Obviously, those of us on the NYS Coalition on Lyme and Tick-borne Disease, disagree with this assessment. Just one simple example: the 2005 memo was no longer being honored by the OPMC, which was why almost every, if not, every single LLMD physician was being harassed. There would not have been a physician left in NYS to treat suffering patients.
I am certain the Coalition will answer this.
It is indeed a sad day,
Jill"
We have a lot of work to do in 2015 both in NYS and federally. WE MUST REMAIN POSITIVE AND MOVE FORWARD. We can not get things done when we do not work together. TOGETHER we are a powerful force. We must not allow this to break our community.
This may be shared.
Jill Auerbach
Hudson Valley Lyme Disease Association, Chairperson
NYS Coalition on Lyme and Tick-borne Disease, Member
"What's the problem? Well it's the ticks of course!"
--------------------
KarlaL
Posts: 331 | From New Lebanon, NY | Registered: Dec 2010 | IP: Logged |
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 29631
AGAIN, FALSE STATEMENT- "Without this legislation, NYS physicians would have nothing to protect them from what was happening over the past few years. Some would have closed their practices, others would stop treatment of TBD patients."
posted 02-06-2015 12:30 PM
-------- Original message --------
From: Auerjill@aol.com
Date:02/05/2015 5:57 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: LDANET@yahoogroups.com
Forwarded message regarding recent posting by the Lyme Disease Association regarding their concerns with the Chapter Amendment to the NYS Lyme Disease Patient Rights/Doctor Protection Bill
Forwarded message from Jill Auerbach
Subject: Re: [LDANET] From the NYS Coalition on Lyme and Tick-borne Disease
This is from myself not the NYS Coaltion but is in addition to it. Please read the other first.
Without this legislation, NYS physicians would have nothing to protect them from what was happening over the past few years. Some would have closed their practices, others would stop treatment of TBD patients. Where would sick patients have to turn? It is already horrendous in NYS!
Jill
In a message dated 2/5/2015 5:54:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, LDANET@yahoogroups.com writes:
As a member of a coalition of Lyme advocates in New York who have worked with our state leaders on legislation pertaining to physicians and medical providers in our state, we believe everyone should be aware of the following information about the bill signed by Governor Cuomo on December 17, 2014, the intent of which was to protect physicians who treat Lyme disease in NYS.
1. The 2005 memo signed by former Governor Pataki suggesting OPMC reform with regard to Lyme-treating physicians has been completely ignored by the OPMC.
2. Almost all, if not all, NYS physicians treating Lyme patients have been investigated by the OPMC to the point of harassment.
3. Governor Cuomo signed the bill only upon agreement that it would be amended to address what his counsel felt was a technicality in the language. The bill sponsors agreed to the amendment. Without the amendment, the bill would have been vetoed. The bill is now law.
4. The amendment includes additional protections that were not in the bill signed into law on Dec 17th.
No law is perfect, but the New York State Coalition on Lyme and Tick-borne Disease strongly believes that this law will achieve the goal of discouraging arbitrary and capricious review of a physician’s medical license In New York, solely because of treatment modality for Lyme disease. Additionally, both trusted long term allies in the NYS legislature and physicians that are affected favor the legislation.
We therefore ask that the LDA respect the hard work and decisions of the New York State Coalition and support our efforts to create a positive dialog and long term plan to address Lyme disease issues with our NYS legislators.
Jill Auerbach
Hudson Valley Lyme Disease Association, Chairperson
NYS Coalition on Lyme and Tick-borne Disease, Member
"What's the problem? Well it's the ticks of course!"
Posted by: Auerjill@aol.com
--------------------
KarlaL
Posts: 331 | From New Lebanon, NY | Registered: Dec 2010 | IP: Logged |
posted 02-06-2015 12:30 PM
I have some comments. Pat Smith is making the case that the amendment is putting additional demands for investigation on the OPMC, but in my reading of the law, it does not. It is only requiring that in the preliminary review that is already required under the law, if it is determined that the complaint is based primarily on a treatment modality, then the OPMC must end the investigation at the stage of the preliminary review.
(A) Below is the paragraph from the existing law regarding preliminary reviews:
(i) The board for professional medical conduct, by the director of the office of professional medical conduct, may investigate on its own any suspected professional misconduct, and shall investigate each complaint received regardless of the source. The director of the office of professional medical conduct shall cause A preliminary review of every report made to the department pursuant to section twenty-eight hundred three-e as added by chapter eight hundred sixty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred eighty, sections twenty- eight hundred five-l and forty-four hundred five-b of this chapter, and section three hundred fifteen of the insurance law, to determine if such report reasonably appears to reflect physician conduct warranting further investigation pursuant to this subparagraph.
(ii) If the investigation of cases referred to an investigation committee involves issues of clinical practice, medical experts, shall be consulted. Experts may be made available by the state medical society of the state of New York, by county medical societies and specialty societies, and by New York state medical associations dedicated to the advancement of non-conventional medical treatments.
A preliminary review of every complaint to the OPMC is already required under the existing law. The amendment doesn't change this; it only clarifies that the preliminary review should include consideration of treatment modality.
If the complaint involves issues of clinical practice then the law already requires that "medical experts shall be consulted." To me the phrase "internal clinical review" is referring to this practice, which is already codified into existing law.
So the chapter amendment does not supersede existing provisions under the law regarding preliminary review of complaints by the OPMC, it only requires that if the complaint is based primarily on a treatment modality, then the OPMC must end the investigation at the stage of the preliminary review. In addition, the amendment empowers the Director of the OPMC to make the determination that a complaint is based treatment modality at any time in the preliminary review and at that point no further review will be conducted.
(B) Pat is making the claim that the sentence "to a particular patient" makes it easier for the OPMC to conclude that long-term antibiotics are not an effective treatment for Lyme disease, and thus long-term antibiotic-treatment for Lyme disease could be not be classified as an effective treatment that falls under the protection of the new law.
I believe that the phrase written directly into the law, including “VARYING MODALITIES USED IN THE TREATMENT OF LYME DISEASE OR OTHER TICK-BORNE DISEASES,” gives a great deal of protection to doctors treating Lyme disease with long-term antibiotics.
KarlaL
[ 02-06-2015, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: KarlaL ]
--------------------
KarlaL
Posts: 331 | From New Lebanon, NY | Registered: Dec 2010 | IP: Logged |
posted 02-14-2015 08:17 AM
On February 10th, the chapter amendment to the NYS Doctor Protection/Patient Rights Law was passed in the NYS Assembly Health Committee. The NYS Assembly is on recess until February 25th, so the chapter amendment will not be brought to a floor in the NYS Assembly vote until after that date. On February 9th, the chapter amendment to the NYS Patient Rights/Doctor Protection Law passed on the floor of the NYS Senate.
Bill S1693-2015
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S1693-2015
--------------------
KarlaL
Posts: 331 | From New Lebanon, NY | Registered: Dec 2010 | IP: Logged |
LINK HERE- http://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/8/3207
Eventually, the Lyme Disease Association spoke out against the bill's amendment and it moving forward, but not until the damage was done.
In Dec 2014, Gov. Cuomo signed the Lyme disease doctor protection bill into law, and he indicated that he only signed on the condition an amendment would be passed in the New Year. At that time, the amendment was not made public, but some groups were told it would be just a "technical" amendment.
In Dec 2014, Governor Cuomo signed the Lyme disease doctor protection bill into law. When he signed, he indicated he only signed on the condition an amendment would be passed in the New Year (2015), and at that time, the amendment was not made public, but some groups were told it would be just a "technical" amendment. Due to the uncertain nature of that amendment and lack of process transparency, the LDA withheld its judgment on the New York bill with the upcoming amendment and how it might affect New York doctors treating long term. After examining the amendment, now released by NYS and yet to be passed, the LDA does NOT support its adoption.
(UPDATE NOTE: NY Voices of Lyme posted on Feb 11 the following: On February 10th, the chapter amendment to the NYS Doctor Protection/Patient Rights Law was passed in the NYS Assembly Health Committee. The NYS Assembly is on recess until February 25th, so the chapter amendment will not be brought to a floor in the NYS Assembly vote until after that date. On February 9th, the chapter amendment to the NYS Patient Rights/Doctor Protection Law passed on the floor of the NYS Senate.)
On balance, the proposed new language may be more harmful than helpful in protecting licensed health care practitioners from intrusive investigations lacking a meritorious basis and may facilitate rather than discourage investigations (no matter how they are labeled) launched to find something wrong. The question becomes, "Why pass something that, in the best case, would be unlikely to provide any significant benefit or relief, but may likely make things significantly worse?"
(See amendment text here http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S1693-2015.).
History: Before the 2014 NYS law passage, the 2005 memo served as a finding that a treatment modality in itself was not misconduct and closed the case without identifying or investigating the licensee. Because one could argue the legal weight of the 2005 memo, some New York legislators, groups and individual residents wanted to codify it, which was done by the 2014 legislation. The 2005 memo provided that, so long as a treatment modality effectively treats human disease, [etc.], it is contrary to the policy and practice of the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) to identify, investigate or charge (emphasis added) a physician, PA, or specialist assistant based solely on that practitioner's recommendation or provision of such a treatment modality.
The bill signed into law in Dec. 2014, modified the language on the memo, but seemed to largely preserve the provisions and the intent of the memo. The language as cited above, "based solely on" and "a treatment modality that effectively treats human disease," provided the board for professional misconduct and the OPMC a great deal of flexibility and latitude to conduct investigations or initiate investigations.
Proposed Amendment: The newest amendment language agreed to by the NY Governor and legislature behind the scenes and now awaiting action, largely guts the 2005 memo and the Dec. 2014 bill signed into law of their practitioner protections. In our opinion, not only does the 2015 proposed amendment not strengthen health care practitioner protections, it makes it easier to go after licensed practitioners – requiring initiation of an investigation no matter the source or the basis of a complaint and mandating that the investigation include a review of clinical practices.
Sec. 230 of the existing Public Health Law (codified) paragraph 10.(a)(i) [Scroll to page 6 of Public Health Law here] says that the board and the OPMC may investigate on its own any suspected professional misconduct, and shall investigate each complaint received regardless of the source. Paragraph 10(a)(i) is being modified by the proposed amendment to add language: "By the conclusion of a preliminary review, including an internal clinical review (emphasis added), the Director shall determine if a report is based solely on the upon the recommendation or provision of a treatment modality by a licensee that is not universally accepted by the medical profession, including but not limited to varying modalities used in the treatment of Lyme disease or other TBD. Upon a determination that a report is based solely upon the provisions of a treatment modality that is not universally accepted, no further review shall be conducted and no charges shall be brought. Nothing in this section shall preclude the Director from making such a determination earlier in, or subsequent to, a preliminary review."
The new amendment provides that only after the conclusion of a "preliminary review, including an internal clinical review" will the Director make a determination on the merits of a complaint/report. Proponents of the new amendment language say that it is only a "preliminary investigation." However, a search for a definition of a preliminary investigation in NYS law that would cover the Public Health Law has not been unearthed by LDA. The new language says that the preliminary investigation will (NOT MAY) include an "internal clinical review." Not only will a practitioner be identified and an investigation launched, but every review shall include at least some type of "internal clinical review." So how "preliminary" is that?
We could not find a definition of "internal clinical review" in Sec. 230 of the Public Health Law," but paragraph 10.(a)(ii) [Scroll to page 7 of Public Health Law here] does say, "If the investigation of cases referred to an investigation committee involves issues of clinical practice, medical experts shall be consulted." Since the "preliminary review" is mandated by new language to include issues of clinical practice, it may mean that medical experts are mandated to be brought into the investigation no matter the merits of the complaint/report, i.e., in all cases. LDA does not think that saying "internal" clinical review precludes the use of "medical experts." In addition, to say that the Director may make a determination "earlier in, or subsequent to, a preliminary review" does not seem to provide meaningful relief, since the phrase "earlier in" has no meaning in that "preliminary review" has no definition or limits and "subsequent to" just means after the review has been conducted.
Other language added by the proposed amendment is problematic. New amendment language also modifies the underlying law by adding the language "for which the licensee is treating a patient" after "recommends or provides a treatment modality that effectively treats human disease, pain, injury, deformity or physical condition." This opens wide the door to arguing that longer-term antibiotic treatment is not effective in treating Lyme, as opposed to the existing language specifying that the treatment modality (i.e., longer-term use of antibiotics) be effective at treating human disease. Also - in the same sentence, the new language "to a particular patient" is added after "provision of that modality." Addition of the new language "to a particular patient" facilitates making arguments that a "pattern" of providing a treatment modality to patients is misconduct or possible misconduct requiring further investigation.
One also needs to question whether the signing into law of a bill in Dec. 2014 on the condition of amending it in the New Year was a tactic to generate a sense of complacency in those who wanted real doctor protection. If this language had been offered last year, it likely would have been soundly rejected, but as an agreed upon amendment to an already passed bill, who knows if it can even be stopped.
Additional Information
New York City Lyme Disease Support Group
EDUCATION • SUPPORT • COMPASSION • ACTIVISM
Monday, January 26 meeting is CANCELED
LYME BILL UPDATE
We did it! On December 17, 2014, Governor Cuomo signed bill S7854 subject to a chapter amendment which will be handled in the new legislative session in January. While the details of the amendment haven't yet been made public, we have been advised that it is favorable and strengthens the legislation.
Thanks to everyone who worked to make this happen!
Link Here- http://www.nyclymesupport.org
**** **** ****
Dear Lyme Patient, Family Member, or Friend,
We need your assistance to ensure that sick patients receive the individualized treatments that they need for Lyme and any Tick Borne Diseases they may have. NYS Senate Bill S5520-B and Assembly Bill A7558-A will protect the patients' rights to work with the doctor of their choice to decide the best treatment plans for Lyme & other tick-borne diseases without the physicians fearing reprisal. The Assembly has already passed this bill, thanks to the skill and dedication of Assemblywoman Didi Barrett. We now need your help to "encourage" the Senate to pass the identical bill now before them. It is currently stalled in the Health Committee, where previous versions have been left to expire.
The following link will take you a page where you can take ACTION!
https://www.votervoice.net/NYSCOALITION/Campaigns/36090/Respond
Once you are on the votervoice site, please scroll to the boxes at the bottom of the page.
1. Enter your reasons for wanting this bill passed, such as "I was sick for 5 years before I received proper diagnosis", or "my child has been sick for 3 years", " I want the freedom to choose my doctor and my treatment" , etc.
2. Next, enter your email and zip code
3. Click "Continue"
4. Fill in the remaining info.
The Senate session ends June 20. We don't have much time. Every effort you can make will help.
HVLDA has been working with other advocate groups throughout NY to coordinate efforts and resources. Together we formed NYS Coalition on Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases to help lead New Yorkers to patient choice protection legislation.
Thank you for helping us to help YOU! We're all in this together!
Sincerely,
Jill Auerbach
HVLDA, Chairperson
PLEASE DO THIS NOW: TOGETHER WE ARE POWERFUL!
WHO WE ARE
In 1996, Lyme disease support group leaders and advocates in Dutchess County, formed a committee to address issues of concern regarding Lyme disease. Currently the Hudson Valley Lyme Disease Association consists of a Board and community members who address issues related to Lyme and other tick borne diseases (TBDs). We are dedicated to prevention, education, environmental issues, research and patient support.
MISSION STATEMENT
The Hudson Valley Lyme Disease Association is dedicated to reducing the impact and severity of Lyme and other tick borne diseases in the Hudson Valley.
AFFILIATIONS
Stop Ticks On People (S.T.O.P.)
Lyme Disease Association, Inc. (LDA)
www.lymediseaseassociation.org
Dutchess County Department of Health
(845) 486-3400
www.co.dutchess.ny.us/CountyGov/Departments/Health/HDIndex.htm
Dutchess County Legislative Task Force.
(845) 486-2100
Cary Institute of Ecosystems Studies (IES)
Millbrook, New York
(845) 677-5359
Multiple Support Groups
Lyme Disease Association
18
DEC
2014
Governor Cuomo signed the Lyme doctor protection bill into law in NY. The legislature and Governor have agreed to some kind of amendment, however, and that amendment has not yet been made public. The action on the amendment (Dec 17, 2014: APPROVAL MEMO.27) is noted on the following website where the bill history and text are noted http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S7854-2013. As soon as LDA knows the content of the memo and its significance, we will post it.
