There are places for lawyers in the healthcare system. As hard as that is for me to write, it is true. What happened recently in Connecticut, however, is not one of them and it should scare us all.
Before I go on, let me give you some background. Lyme disease is a medical condition. It is treated with less then a month of antibiotics. Chronic Lyme disease is an amalgam of symptoms that is not supported by any evidence. It is eerily similar to its sister “designer diseases” chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia.
The cult groups behind Chronic Lyme want to validate their beliefs and also want the insurance companies to pay for much longer periods of antibiotics. As much as I hate insurance companies (I think my history speaks for itself), I agree with their denials in these cases. The fact that they would just pass the cost on to other customers should make everyone sit up and take notice.
Now for the rest of the story. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal was bullied by these Chronic Lyme groups to open an antitrust investigation against the Infectious Diseases Society of America because he felt the panel excluded some opinions and evidence that may have supported the long term antibiotic treatment theory. Was there any new evidence or study that came out recently to instigate this threat of lawsuit? Of course not. Instead Blumenthal makes the comment that his investigation for the 2006 guidelines included experts who got consulting fees, research grants, and stock ownership from drug companies and other companies that have a stake in the treatment of Chronic Lyme disease.
Does that make any sense to you? Wouldn’t drug companies want to sell more antibiotics? That is how they make their money. If so, then these so-called tainted experts would have pushed for the guidelines to be more favorable for the cult of Chronic Lyme. The fact is they didn’t. If you read the AP article you will see how the giddy gurus of this designer disease are ecstatic that the IDSA is going to take a look at their guidelines again. I think it is a horrible thing for any lawyer to pressure our esteemed medical groups to change their positions by using the threat of lawsuits. It poisons our best thinkers to make “defensive guidelines” not unlike doctors in the field who practice “defensive medicine”.
Before I go on, let me give you some background. Lyme disease is a medical condition. It is treated with less then a month of antibiotics. Chronic Lyme disease is an amalgam of symptoms that is not supported by any evidence. It is eerily similar to its sister “designer diseases” chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia.
The cult groups behind Chronic Lyme want to validate their beliefs and also want the insurance companies to pay for much longer periods of antibiotics. As much as I hate insurance companies (I think my history speaks for itself), I agree with their denials in these cases. The fact that they would just pass the cost on to other customers should make everyone sit up and take notice.
Now for the rest of the story. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal was bullied by these Chronic Lyme groups to open an antitrust investigation against the Infectious Diseases Society of America because he felt the panel excluded some opinions and evidence that may have supported the long term antibiotic treatment theory. Was there any new evidence or study that came out recently to instigate this threat of lawsuit? Of course not. Instead Blumenthal makes the comment that his investigation for the 2006 guidelines included experts who got consulting fees, research grants, and stock ownership from drug companies and other companies that have a stake in the treatment of Chronic Lyme disease.
Does that make any sense to you? Wouldn’t drug companies want to sell more antibiotics? That is how they make their money. If so, then these so-called tainted experts would have pushed for the guidelines to be more favorable for the cult of Chronic Lyme. The fact is they didn’t. If you read the AP article you will see how the giddy gurus of this designer disease are ecstatic that the IDSA is going to take a look at their guidelines again. I think it is a horrible thing for any lawyer to pressure our esteemed medical groups to change their positions by using the threat of lawsuits. It poisons our best thinkers to make “defensive guidelines” not unlike doctors in the field who practice “defensive medicine”.
Posts
