LYMEPOLICYWONK: LymeDisease.org launches new patient survey on the Impact and Cost of Lyme Disease.

Byldoadmin
To participate in this survey, click here.
Communicating the costs of Lyme disease to the patient, the immediate family, the community and, ultimately, the nation increases the pressure for Lyme disease healthcare reform. To accomplish this, we conduct nationwide surveys to provide policy makers information vital to healthcare policy in Lyme disease. Our goal is to open the space for conversations in the public health arena about what is really going on with Lyme patients from their perspective. We are trying to give voice to the patient community, which is all too often completely ignored in conversations about Lyme disease.
Our new survey focuses on the economic cost associated with chronic Lyme Disease and the quality of life impact of Lyme disease.
The LYME POLICY WONK blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org, formerly CALDA. Contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

Similar Posts

  • 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.

  • Medical antitrust actions–Does “might make right”?

    Antitrust law is concerned with constraints of trade that foreclose consumer choice. Guidelines developed by medical specialty societies that have monopoly power (like the IDSA) can become de facto legal standards for the practice of medicine. When they foreclose treatment options and the exercise of clinical judgment, they constrain consumer choice.

    Typically, laws are passed in the United States through a democratic process that allows many groups to have a voice in the law before it is passed. Antitrust laws make an exception to guidelines or standards that are developed by groups that have expertise in an area (for instance, computer chips and medicine) so long as they play fair. The reason for this exception is that the level of expertise required in these areas makes it reasonable for "experts" rather than laymen to be setting the rules.

  • Protesting the panel: Putting pen to paper

    In another post, I pointed out problems with the composition of the IDSA panel—namely, that the IDSA panel is biased toward the IDSA perspective because physicians who treat chronic Lyme were entirely excluded and some of the panel members have known biases. A number of patients have contacted me who want to do something. This post will let you know who, what, and where you can write to have the best chance of getting your voice heard.

  • IDSA Hearing: Putting on a Good Face?

    Those who attended the IDSA guidelines hearing were struck by the even-handed tone of the proceedings established by the Chair, Dr. Carol Baker. It was both unexpected and disarming, and not a small accomplishment given the polarity of the debate. At the same time, there was a feeling of cognitive dissonance—this was not the public face presented by IDSA President, Dr. Ann Gershon—who, in the face of the ILADS submission of over 1,600 pages of scientific evidence contradicting the guideline recommendations, steadfastly maintains there is no evidence of persistence. So what gives? Is this a case of “good cop/bad cop”? Are perceptions deceiving? Is this all a matter of managing public perception? Putting on a public face?