Cpnhelp.org

I watched the hearings back in February or March.  I was so worried it might not pass.  The federal Lyme bills keep being blocked - so this is awesome!  So is this law now in Connecticut?  Or are there still hurdles to go through.

Kelly

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Maggie Shaw Newtown Lyme Disease Task Force Lancaster60@aol.com

Pat Smith Lyme Disease Association Lymeliter@aol.com

Newtown, CT, May 29, 2009 − Patient groups across Connecticut and the nation
were jubilant as the Connecticut Senate passed the Lyme disease doctor
protection bill today, 36-0, following its unanimous passage in the Connecticut
House of Representatives on April 30, 2009.

HB 6200 contains language that will protect CT licensed Lyme treating physicians
from prosecution by the State of Connecticut Medical Examining Board solely on
the basis of a clinical diagnosis and /or for treatment of long-term Lyme disease.

The bill provides the definition for Lyme disease which includes “the presence
in a patient of signs and symptoms compatible with acute infection with Borrelia
burgdorferi; or with late stage or persistent or chronic infection with Borrelia
burgdorferi, or with complications related to such an infection.”

It also defines clinical diagnosis as determined by a physician “…that is based
on knowledge obtained through the medical history and physical examination
alone, or in conjunction with the testing that provides supportive data for such
clinical diagnosis.”

In addition, it provides for updating the Lyme disease definition if other
strains are found to cause Lyme disease.

The final bill was the result of months of negotiations between Legislative
Leaders, the Connecticut Department of Public Health and the undersigned patient
Groups.

According to Maggie Shaw, Newtown Lyme Disease Task Force, who has been
spearheading the Connecticut effort, “Patients in Connecticut and their families
will experience some relief as a result of the passage of this bill and Governor
Rell’s hoped-for decision to sign it into law.

Instead of having to drive for hours to other states, Connecticut residents may
actually be able to receive treatment in the State for their debilitating
symptoms, since the bill opens the door to a more friendly treatment climate for
physicians.”

Pat Smith, president of the national Lyme Disease Association, who has been
working with legislators in Hartford to secure passage, underscored the
importance of the bill to patients everywhere:

“This bill hits at the heart of the Lyme problem, recognizing chronic Lyme
infection, long-term treatment of Lyme disease, and recognizing and defining
clinical judgment by physicians.

Legislators are to be commended for being knowledgeable about the problem,
focusing on finding a solution acceptable to disparate groups, and taking action
to make this bill a reality, a win-win for patients, doctors and the State itself.”

The Groups extend their appreciation to all the Senators, especially the
sponsors. In particular, we thank Senator Jonathan Harris (CT-5), Co-Chair of
the Joint Public Health Committee, and Senator Martin Looney (CT-11), Senate
Majority Leader, who took time from their busy schedules prior to passage to
meet with the Groups on the importance of the bill.

In the House, thanks go to Representatives Jason Bartlett, Kim Fawcett, Public
Health Committee Co-Chair, Betsy Ritter, and Representatives Chris Lyddy, Peggy
Reeves and all of the legislators who supported this bill.

Passage in both houses would not have occurred without the support of patients,
families and members of the Lyme community who wrote letters, made phone calls
and testified in support of the bill and without the critical input and support
of the Connecticut Medical Society.

The International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, which consists of Lyme
treating physicians, also supported the bill.

The Groups have confidence that Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell will fulfill
her commitment to Connecticutresidents and quickly sign this important piece of
legislation into law, which would make Connecticut the second state after RI to
pass a specific Lyme disease protection bill.

Representatives of the Groups met with the Governor’s office earlier this month.

For wording on the bill, please go to www.cga.ct.gov/ HB6200 (File # 903)

Lyme Disease Association, Inc.
Newtown Lyme Disease Task Force
Ridgefield Lyme Disease Task Force
Time For Lyme, Inc.
Eastern Connecticut Chapter, Lyme Disease Association

A cry in the wilderness followed by a foot in the door - a beginning I hope. This is GREAT! And we are here with our site gathering solid evidence for this opening path down the road to open medical minds - again - like the last century. Happy, happy.

Rica

This is so awesome, way to go Connecticut.  And thank you, zazul for letting us know the outcome of this.  I truly hope other states will soon follow in their footsteps.

Kelly

Connecticut Seal

Substitute House Bill No. 6200

Public Act No. 09-128

AN ACT CONCERNING THE USE OF LONG-TERM ANTIBIOTICS FOR THE TREATMENT OF LYME DISEASE.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2009) (a) As used in this section, (1) "long-term antibiotic therapy" means the administration of oral, intramuscular or intravenous antibiotics, singly or in combination, for periods of time in excess of four weeks; and (2) "Lyme disease" means the clinical diagnosis by a physician, licensed in accordance with chapter 370 of the general statutes, of the presence in a patient of signs or symptoms compatible with acute infection with borrelia burgdorferi; or with late stage or persistent or chronic infection with borrelia burgdorferi, or with complications related to such an infection; or such other strains of borrelia that, on and after July 1, 2009, are recognized by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a cause of Lyme disease. Lyme disease includes an infection that meets the surveillance criteria set forth by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other acute and chronic manifestations of such an infection as determined by a physician, licensed in accordance with the provisions of chapter 370 of the general statutes, pursuant to a clinical diagnosis that is based on knowledge obtained through medical history and physical examination alone, or in conjunction with testing that provides supportive data for such clinical diagnosis.

(b) On and after July 1, 2009, a licensed physician may prescribe, administer or dispense long-term antibiotic therapy to a patient for a therapeutic purpose that eliminates such infection or controls a patient's symptoms upon making a clinical diagnosis that such patient has Lyme disease or displays symptoms consistent with a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease, provided such clinical diagnosis and treatment are documented in the patient's medical record by such licensed physician. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 20-8a and 20-13e of the general statutes, on and after said date, the Department of Public Health shall not initiate a disciplinary action against a licensed physician and such physician shall not be subject to disciplinary action by the Connecticut Medical Examining Board solely for prescribing, administering or dispensing long-term antibiotic therapy to a patient clinically diagnosed with Lyme disease, provided such clinical diagnosis and treatment has been documented in the patient's medical record by such licensed physician.

(c) Nothing in this section shall prevent the Connecticut Medical Examining Board from taking disciplinary action for other reasons against a licensed physician, pursuant to section 19a-17 of the general statutes, or from entering into a consent order with such physician pursuant to subsection (c) of section 4-177 of the general statutes. Subject to the limitation set forth in subsection (b) of this section, for purposes of this section, the Connecticut Medical Examining Board may take disciplinary action against a licensed physician if there is any violation of the provisions of section 20-13c of the general statutes.

Thanks Zazul for posting the Connecticut Public Act No. 09-128 in entirity.   One state of 50 but a great start in physician protection and freedom of practice.   This may begin at least in Conn. to bring more providers out of the closet regarding persistent bacterial infection treatment choices.  Louise