LYMEPOLICYWONK: Lyme Healthcare Access and Burden of Illness Survey Results Published!

Byldoadmin

The burden of illness of these patients was substantial: Roughly 26% had been on disability, with a majority receiving support for more than 2 years. Over half had visited an emergency room as a result of their illness, 15% had done so three to five times, and 9% had done so six or more times. These findings indicate that Lyme patients have significant delays in diagnosis and that there is a critical need for healthcare reform in order to reduce the burden of illness and improve access to medical care for Lyme disease.

The study concludes:

“An influential medical society considers Lyme disease to be “rare” and has issued restrictive treatment guidelines. Our study raises concerns that these restrictions lead to delayed and inadequate treatment of patients with Lyme disease, resulting in concomitant reductions in health benefits and increases in economic costs. Our findings therefore indicate that there is substantial need for reform of the healthcare approach to Lyme disease in the United States.”

Access to healthcare:

More than half of patients saw 7 or more physicians to obtain a diagnosis; over a third saw 10 or more physicians.

Nearly half of these Lyme patients had traveled over 50 miles to receive healthcare; 30% had traveled more than 100 miles; and 9% had traveled over 500 miles.(Travel distances of 30 miles or more are considered to impose a high healthcare access burden on a patient.)

Roughly 40% had sought services at their local hospital, and approximately 82% of these Lyme patients had difficulty obtaining care.

Of those who applied for health insurance after being diagnosed with Lyme disease 40% were denied coverage because of their prior diagnosis.

13% of those with medical insurance were told to see an infectious disease specialist in order to obtain medical reimbursement for medical costs.

31% of those responding had applied for disability insurance and 39% of these had been denied benefits based on failure to conform to Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines.

Burden of Illness:

25% had received disability or public support, with a majority receiving support for two or more years; 37% for more than 5 years.

39% of those who applied for disability benefits were denied support based on IDSA guidelines.

Study Population:

Patients had been ill a long time. 95% had had Lyme disease for more than 2 years.

95% had received at least 21 days of antibiotics and reported chronic symptoms of 6 months or more.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) versus other testing results: Patients were clinically diagnosed with supporting lab tests. The diagnosis of 1,000 patients was confirmed by CDC two-tiered criteria or CDC Western blot criteria, while the diagnosis of 1,424 patients was confirmed by other lab methods (including positive PCR, cerebrospinal fluid tests, or positive ELISA or Western blots interpreted using non-CDC criteria). Aside from delay in diagnosis, there were no significant differences in the patients whose diagnosis was confirmed with tests meeting CDC surveillance criteria and those whose supporting tests did not meet CDC criteria.  Those without CDC-based positive tests saw more physicians before they were diagnosed.

The abstract of the article is available here.

The LYME POLICY WONK blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is CALDA’s Chief Executive Officer. Contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

 

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Pat Smith’s Comment before IOM

    I am posting the written speeches of those who commented during the public comment period of the IOM. The speech below is that of Pat Smith, President of the national Lyme Disease Association, who addressed process issues with the IOM hearing and raised concerns regarding the lack of transparency of the process and the need for a greater opportunity for patients and other viewpoints to participate in the hearings. Her testimony is available as a downloadable pdf by clicking the link at the bottom of this blog post.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: NIH Tick Feeding Study Safety Risk Update

    We recently received a response from the NIH regarding our concerns about the NIH tick feeding study and the risk of tickborne infections from the larval ticks that researchers intend to place on patients to feed. We have written the NIH about this several times. Our latest letter focused on the newly identified pathogen, Borrelia miyamotoi, which can be transmitted to larval ticks through the mother's eggs. We asked the NIH to tell us what bacteria they test for in the larval ticks to ensure that patients in the study are not at risk. According to the NIH, the following pathogens are screened for: Borrelia burgdorferi, Babesia microti, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Borrelia miyamotoi, Bartonella spp, Rickettsia sp., deer tick viruses and orbiviruses. We are glad to see that these pathogens are being screened for but remain concerned that unidentified pathogens nevertheless place patients at risk in the study.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Persistence Personified in Lyme Disease–Those Pesky Human Cases

    Current laboratory tests widely used for Lyme disease rely on indirect measures of infection based on the immune system’s antibody response to B. burdorferi—the bacteria which causes Lyme disease. Antibody tests are highly insensitive and miss a whopping 43% of Lyme disease cases. In addition, these tests can only determine past exposure to the bacteria, not active infection. They also cannot determine whether the infection has been eradicated.

  • Lyme disease: Losing your innocence in science

    Having Lyme means losing your innocence, utterly, in science. It's true. I am remembering the night I explained evidence-based medicine to a friend whose daughter had Lyme. I explained that in Lyme evidence-based medicine was a “tool” for persuasion in a polemic argument. He was stunned. His daughter had Lyme. He believed in science. He had trouble, real trouble, getting his daughter diagnosed and treated. He knew the problems of Lyme from the inside out. But it hadn’t occurred to him that science wasn’t “pure” science. That researchers followed their bias, their pet theories, their commercial interests in designing and interpreting studies. It was an interesting moment with this sharp and concerned father while he tried to understand the depth of the problem in Lyme. It was a moment when innocence is utterly lost for the first time to those who know how the system of science “ought” to work.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA Reports No Change in Guidelines–The Fat Cat Ate the Canary

    What happened? The IDSA has issued its official report of the Lyme review panel. “[A] special independent Review Panel has unanimously agreed that no changes need be made to IDSA’s 2006 Lyme disease guidelines.” Let me point out three faults with this statement. First there was no “independent Review Panel”. There was a panel that was selected by the IDSA, which intentionally excluded from the panel physicians who disagreed with their assessment—all community physicians who treat chronic Lyme were excluded from the panel. Second, some changes to the recommendations were proposed by the panel. Third, the determinations were not unanimous. The most important recommendation regarding the requirement of positive serology for diagnosis actually had a 4 to 4 vote split. I will spare you the long read—28 pages of text and give you the bare bones only version. Nothing changed. They are not even sure what the fuss was about, honestly. They never expected the guidelines to change, stacked the panel, paid the ethicist, ran the process, and achieved a foregone conclusion which “validated” their guidelines. Seems like the IDSA fat cat ate the canary.