|
|
Post by enochroot on May 5, 2008 0:59:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by nyxie63 on May 5, 2008 2:36:08 GMT -8
It certainly opens the doors. Nice to see at least one insurance company taking a second look at their own guidelines and policies.
Since seeing the topic come up on LN, I've been wondering how many of the docs who have been treating with long-term antibiotics have been keeping track of their success/failure/ongoing tx rate. Would be interesting to see what the track record really looks like. Might be a good time for this info to come out, but not sure if that would help or hurt us, depending on the results. Either way, I'm curious.
Btw, I'm still learning about a lot of this. Does the IDSA state "post-lyme syndrome" as being a solely mental condition? It is listed in the DSM? If not, then how can they claim it to be a valid condition/dx?
Or do they say it's a physical condition that they simply can't or don't want to bother treating? And if so, why not?
Sorry to sound like such a noob. Well, guess I am a noob. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by LymeEnigma on May 5, 2008 14:40:03 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure the IDSA considers "post-Lyme syndrome" to be very physical, possibly due to remnants of the bacteria remaining in the body and causing continuing symptoms. I think they have it partially right, but I also think they are dead wrong when it comes to their public stance on chronic forms of the disease.
I really hope that the results of the antitrust probe prove to be a springboard for more eclectic views on treatment among the mainstream. We really need for the rift between various views to be bridged together, somehow, the most viable data and theories from both sides explored and expanded upon. I'm feeling hopeful.
|
|
|
|
Post by hakutsuru on May 5, 2008 19:49:24 GMT -8
Interesting "conflict" of interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsybitsyone on May 6, 2008 3:50:32 GMT -8
The conflict is in patents and stock for fake vaccines and tests, as well as being paid experts for insurance companies. No one gets rich off generic drugs. If a dr. has stock in an infusion company who charges top dollar that's one thing. But the conflict is not about who has stock in what abx.
It is an innane statement, simply because if they stood to get rich prescribing generic drugs, they probably would. But I doubt anyone is getting rich from something you can get at Walmartr for $3. Makes them sound good and ethical, but that isn't what is at the heart of the controversy. So, they can say that all they want and never come close to touching on the truth. I know my LLMD isn't getting rich off me, and only sees lyme patients on Mondays, and surely isn't making a bundle on minocycline.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsybitsyone on May 6, 2008 3:52:00 GMT -8
The authors, many of the same 'guideline doctors', of the recent NEJM opinion article (one of the latest controversy feeding frenzies),“A Critical Appraisal of ‘Chronic Lyme Disease’” do state emphatically,“Explaining that there is no medication, such as an antibiotic, to cure the condition is one of the most difficult aspects of caring for such patients.”*
Quite possibly, rather than spending their time researching and writing such an article in defensive stance during their AG Anti-trust investigation, of which we are now speaking, they may want to consider quelling the controversy and uproar by actually looking for a better way to identify, manage, treat, and cure what they refer to as a post-lyme syndrome. In fact, some patients might even be OK with the idea of a syndrome with no cure, but no effort is made to even decide the best management of these symptoms beyond pushing psychiatric drugs for a physical condition. After all, they do consider themselves to be the foremost experts, do they not? Experts, self-proclaimed or not, shouldn’t feel the need to be shielding or create more drama if they are blameless for the situation. They should feel confident, rather than need to be condescending, if their views are correct. If the mystery isn’t yet solved, the natural curiosity of academia should be in overdrive. We are more than 30 years into the study and treatment of this disease. If the post-infectious syndrome, if that is indeed what it is, is something we have a problem with even beginning to define to date, why are we doing so much arguing and so little studying? If the medical establishment would stop announcing and then systematically denying the symptoms, and at least help manage the pain and disability, it could prove their point. But they cannot. Because they cannot prove that the infection doesn't linger. Like washing one’s hands before delivering babies, good, quality, simple ideas tend to take a while to sink in past the dogmatic belief structure of the medical community.
*A Critical Appraisal of "Chronic Lyme Disease" Henry M. Feder, Jr., M.D., Barbara J.B. Johnson, Ph.D., Susan O'Connell, M.D., Eugene D. Shapiro, M.D., Allen C. Steere, M.D., Gary P. Wormser, M.D., and the Ad Hoc International Lyme Disease Group NJEM Volume 357 1422 1430
|
|
|
|
Post by cobweb2 on May 6, 2008 7:09:40 GMT -8
Again I consider myself very fortunate because my insurance company has paid for all meds-including 8 months of IV Rocephin, for "persistent lyme disease".
But it has helped to test positive and have a screwed up spect scan. Don't know what the battle to be treated would have been without backup.
|
|
|
|
Post by LymeEnigma on May 6, 2008 18:14:06 GMT -8
I battled my insurance company throughout my entire six months on zithro; I think they paid for two months, total, and the rest I had to pay for out of pocket. Luckily my insurance covered most of the Mepron, as well as all the plaquenil.
|
|
