LYME DISEASE VICTORIES!
- President Bush Signs Public Law 107-116 (January 10, 2002)
- Senate Passes First Lyme Disease Bill (October 17, 2002)
- Victory for Dr Joseph Burrascano Jr.
- Victory for Rhode Island Lyme Disease Patients
PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS PUBLIC LAW 107-116
To Whom It May Concern:
This law, signed by President Bush, reinforces that the CDC's Lyme
disease (LD) Case Surveillance Definition is not valid as a standard of
care for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. It also
reinforces that medical protocols that use the CDC LD Case Definition
to base diagnostic and/or treatment standards misuse this protocol
and are invalid. This means the Federal Government believes
decisions regarding Lyme disease diagnosis, treatment and insurance
reimbursement for Lyme disease care cannot be based on the CDC's
Lyme disease surveillance case definition. A copy of the wording is
on the shaded area of this sheet.
Signed:
--------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 107-116 Signed by President Bush 1/10/02
Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2002
This is the wording that was passed by the Senate (11/06/01,
12/20/2001) and House (10/11/01, 12/19/01) and included as part of the
final bill was signed into Public Law by President George Bush on
January 10, 2002.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Lyme Disease - The Committee is deeply concerned about the safety
of the Lyme disease vaccine (LymeRix). Over 1,000 adverse event
reports were filed with the Food and Drug Administration from
December 1998 to October 2000. The Committee encourages CDC to
work closely with the FDA to ensure that all adverse event reports are
thoroughly and expeditiously investigated to ensure public safety as
the vaccine is being distributed. Investigators should pay particular
attention to patients'reports of arthritis when evaluating these reports.
The Committee recognizes that the current state of laboratory testing
for Lyme disease is very poor. The situation has led many people to
be misdiagnosed and delayed proper treatment. The vaccine clinical
trial has documented that more that one-third (36 percent) of the
people with Lyme disease did not test positive on the most
sophisticated tests available. The ramifications of this deficit in terms
of unnecessary pain, suffering and cost is staggering. The Committee
directs CDC to work closely with the Food and Drug Administration to
develop an unequivocal test for Lyme disease.
The Committee is distressed in hearing of the widespread misuse of
the current Lyme disease surveillance case definition. While the CDC
does state that 'this surveillance case definition was developed for
national reporting of Lyme disease: it is NOT appropriate for clinical
diagnosis,' the definition is reportedly misused as a standard of care
for healthcare reimbursement, product (test) development, medical
licensing hearings, and other legal cases. The CDC is encouraged to
aggressively pursue and correct the misuse of this definition. This
includes issuing an alert to the public and physicians, as well as
actively issuing letters to places rm'susing this definition.
The Committee recommends that the CDC strongly support the
reexamination and broadening of the Lyme disease surveillance case
definition by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.
Voluntary and patient groups should have input into this process.
Currently there is just one definition ('confirmed case') of seven
possible categories. By developing other categories while leaving the
current category intact, the true number of cases being diagnosed
and treated will be more accurately counted, lending to improved
public health planning for finding solutions to the infection.
The CDC is encouraged to include a broad range of scientific
viewpoints in the process of planning and executing their efforts. This
means including community-based clinicians with extensive
experience in treating these patients, voluntary agencies who have
advocacy in their mission, and patient advocates in planning
committees, meetings, and outreach efforts.
National Institutes of Health - Office of the Director
Lyme disease - The Committee recommends that the NIH improve its
communication across Institutes in order to better coordinate Lyme
disease research and outreach to public and private scientists with
the goal of stimulating research interest in this field. The Committee
encourages the Office of the Director to involve NIAID, NHLBI, NINDS,
NEI, NINM, and NCCAM in promising areas of research.
The Committee urges NIH officials to identify appropriate NIH advisory
committees for Lyme disease representation and ensure the
appointment of qualified persons. The NIH is encouraged to include a
broad range of scientific viewpoints in the process of pluming and
executing these ettorts, including community-based clinicians with
extensive experience in treating these patients, voluntary agencies
who have advocacy in their mission, and patient advocates.
Social Security Administration
The Committee understands that some patients with Lyme disease
and other tick-bome disorders have encountered some difficulty when
applying for assistance through SSA offices, due to SSA employees'
unfamiliarity with these illnesses. SSA is encouraged to work on
developing educational materials for SSA employees to facilitate a
better understanding of the potential debilitating effects of these
disorders. The Committee suggests that SSA collaborate with
clinicians who have expertise on the multi-system chronic effects of
Lyme, as well as patient and voluntary communities, to accomplish
this goal."
SENATE PASSES FIRST LYME DISEASE BILL
SENATE PASSES FIRST LYME DISEASE BILL
Public Given a Formal Voice in Government Tick-borne Activities
A seminal event in the history of the fight against tick-borne diseases
occurred last night when Senate bill S.969, “A bill to establish a
Tick-Borne Disorders Advisory Committee, and for other purposes” became
the first Lyme disease legislation to pass the Senate. This bill gives
the public a formal “place at the table” and input into government Lyme
disease and other tick-borne disorders education and research activities.
The bill, which now moves to the House for passage, establishes the first
Tick-borne Disorders Advisory Committee in the office of the Secretary of
Health and Human Services. The Lyme Disease Foundation (LDF), the premier
national nonprofit dedicated to tick-borne disorders, lead the team of
Community Groups who helped to craft the bill and its various versions as it
moved through the Senate. LDF chairperson Karen Forschner, BS, MBA, CPCU,
CLU, said, “I was overjoyed to learn the bill passed the Senate. >From the
time we established the necessity for this bill, through the crafting of the
legislation with the Lyme Society and others, we knew this was truly an
example of the government responding to public need. While the bill has
undergone the typical streamlining and tinkering that occur to bills as they
move through the Congress, the essential elements of the bill are clearly
intact. And, the name of the bill still remains.”
The bill establishes the first Tick-borne Disease Advisory Committee in the
office of the Department of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
This committee includes government officials in a nonvoting capacity and public
(nongovernment) members with voting rights. Public members include an equal
number of: patients or family members of patients; representatives of
tick-borne disorder voluntary organizations; scientific community members;
healthcare providers; and representatives of state and local health
departments and national organizations who represent state and local
professionals. The legislation further empowers the “public voice” by
allowing committee members to add agenda items. The bill “Findings” section
clearly reflects the seriousness of tick-borne diseases.
In addition to establishing the Committee, the bill also includes $50
million over five years for government research and educational tick-borne
activities, and suggests priorities for government activities such as
developing improved tick-borne disease tests, surveillance and reporting
activities, and increased an emphasis on prevention.
Lyme disease is a chronic tick-borne disease, the most widely known
tick-borne disease.
Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) were
instrumental in working with the Lyme community to introduce the bill and
develop the necessary support. Because key House members involved in Lyme
legislation approved of the Senate version, the bill is expected to pass the
House.
This summer the Lyme Disease Community Caucus was formed to include multiple
Lyme groups in order to present a unified voice to Congress and ensure that
voices from Lyme disease “non-endemic” areas were heard. Ms. Forschner said
it was in large part the work of the Lyme Caucus, which includes Lyme groups
from Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, and New Jersey (with
input from other groups across the country) that ensured the legislation
would pass.
“As a patient and President of an independent Lyme nonprofit, I was pleased
to represent nonendemic states in this process,” said Linda Lobes of the
Michigan Lyme Disease Association “There is so much concentration on the
top ten states that the plight of patients suffering from tick-borne
diseases in the other 40 states is ignored. This bill includes us all.”
In one conference call, Ms. Lobes said she was negotiating with the Senate
staff members on the phone while conducting a garage sale. They waited
patiently while she was talking with the people about prices for items on
the tables. “The customers never realized I was negotiating with both them
and the United States Senate at the same time,” said Ms. Lobes. “ The
legislative aids were very accommodating and allowed me to complete sales,
before resuming discussions. It was a great example of average citizens
working with elected officials to provide input to protect their
constituents.”
Ms. Mary Halinski, President of the Lyme Society of Pennsylvania said, “The
Tick-Borne Disorder Advisory Committee Bill passing the Senate is a victory
for the entire Lyme disease community that has united behind this
legislation. For the very first time, the public and patients will be at
the table and have input into the direction of the government’s research,
prevention and educational activities regarding tick-borne disorders.”
Renee Thaler, Coordinator, Midwest Lyme Disease Task Force in Illinois,
states “ I am delighted about the bill’s passage. It is due to the
outstanding work of the LDF and activists working with them that was
critical to the passage.”
“This bill is an excellent opportunity for us to have pubic input into the
government activities that affect us all.” said Monte Skall, Executive
Director, National Capital Lyme Disease Association in Washington, DC.
“With the Senate's unanimous approval of this bipartisan Lyme disease
legislation, Lyme patients and their families are one step closer to the
revamping and strengthening of the federal government's efforts to combat
this terrible disease,” remarked Senator Santorum. “Senator Dodd and I
have a long history of working together on this issue, and we are grateful
for the tremendous efforts of the Lyme advocacy community to raise awareness
and mobilize support for this legislation. We look forward to working with
them and our colleagues in the House of Representatives to ensure swift
passage of this important measure so that we can begin maximizing the public
and private resources dedicated to fighting Lyme."
Senator Dodd who in 1988 became the first member of Congress to introduce
Lyme disease legislation, said the important legislation is only a first
step in the battle against tick-borne diseases.
Does Congressional interest end here? Absolutely not! “I pledge to continue
to work with my colleagues to ensure vigorous and effective oversight of the
legislation’s implementation in order to ensure that our intent if fully
realized,” said Senator Dodd. “It is my hope that the important work of
this, the first federal advisory committee on Lyme disease, will lay out a
concise and workable federal blueprint for combatting this debilitating
illness.”
For interviews:
• Linda Lobes, Michigan Lyme Disease Association - 888-784-5963
• Mary Halinski, President, Lyme Disease Society - 215-368-2559
• Karen Vanderhoof-Forschner, Lyme Disease Foundation - 860-558-9148
---------------------------------------------------
The bill: 107th CONGRESS 969 ES 2d Session
OFFICIAL TITLE(unchanged): A bill to establish a Tick-Borne Disorders
Advisory Committee, and for other purposes.
(Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)
AN ACT To establish a Tick-Borne Disorders Advisory Committee, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Lyme disease is a common but frequently misunderstood illness that, if
not caught early and treated properly, can cause serious health problems.
(2) Lyme disease is a bacterial infection that is transmitted by a tick
bite. Early sign of infection may include a rash and flu-like symptoms such as
fever, muscle aches, headaches, and fatigue.
(3) Although Lyme disease can be treated with antibiotics if caught early,
the disease often goes undetected because it mimics other illnesses or may
be misdiagnosed. Untreated, Lyme disease can lead to severe heart,
neurological, eye, and joint problems because the bacteria can affect
many different organs and organ systems.
(4) If an individual with Lyme disease does not receive treatment, such
individual can develop severe heart, neurological, eye, and joint problems.
(5) Although Lyme disease accounts for 90 percent of all vector-borne
infections in the United States, the ticks that spread Lyme disease also
spread other disorders, such as ehrlichiosis, babesiosis, and other strains
of Borrelia. All of these diseases in 1 patient makes diagnosis and
treatment more difficult.
(6) Although tick-borne disease cases have been reported in 49 States and
the District of Columbia, about 90 percent of the 15,000 cases have been
reported in the following 10 States: Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York,
New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Delaware,
and Wisconsin. Studies have shown that the actual number of tick-borne
disease cases are approximately 10 times the amount reported due to poor
surveillance of the disease.
(7) Persistence of symptomatology in many patients without reliable testing
makes treatment of patients more difficult.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF A TICK-BORNE DISORDERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE – Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, there shall be established an advisory committee to
be known as the Tick-Borne Disorders Advisory Committee (referred to in this
Act as the “Committee”) organized in the Office of the Secretary.
(b) DUTIES – The Committee shall advise and Secretary and Assistant
Secretary of Health regarding how to –
(1) assure interagency coordination and communication and minimize overlap
regarding efforts to address tick-borne disorders;
(2) identify opportunities to coordinate efforts with other Federal agencies
and private organizations addressing tick-borne disorders; and
(3) develop informed responses to constituency groups regarding the
Department of Health and Human Services’ efforts and progress.
(c) MEMBERSHIP. -
(1) APPOINTED MEMBERS. –
(A) IN GENERAL – The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall appoint
voting members to the Committee from among the following member groups:
(i) Scientific community members.
(ii) Representatives of tick-borne disorder voluntary organizations.
(iii) Health care providers.
(iv) Patient representatives who are individuals who have been diagnosed
with tick-borne illnesses or who have had an immediate family member diagnosed
with such illness.
(v) Representatives of State and local health departments and national
organizations who represent state and local health professionals.
(B) REQUIREMENT. – The Secretary shall ensure that an equal number of
individuals are appointed to the Committee from each of the member groups
described in clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).
(2) EX OFFICIO MEMBERS. – The Committee shall have nonvoting ex officio
members determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(d) CO-CHAIRPERSONS. – The Assistant Secretary of Health shall serve as the
co-chairperson of the Committee with a public co-chairperson chosen by the
members described under subsection (c). The public co-chairperson shall
serve a 2 year term and retain all voting rights.
(e) TERM OF APPOINTMENTS. – All members shall be appointed to serve on the
Committee for 4 year terms.
(f) VACANCY. – If there is a vacancy on the Committee, such position shall
be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. Any member appointed
to fill a vacancy for an unexpired term shall be appointed for the remainder
of that term. Members may serve after the expiration of their terms until
their successors have taken office.
(g) MEETINGS. – The Committee shall hold public meetings, except as
otherwise determined by the Secretary, giving notice to the public of such,
and meet at least twice a year with additional meetings subject to the
call of the co-chairpersons. Agenda items can be added at the request of
the Committee members, as well as the co-chairpersons. Meetings shall be
conducted, and records of the proceedings kept as required by applicable
laws and Departmental regulations.
(h) REPORTS. –
(1) IN GENERAL. – Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report on the activities carried out under this Act.
(2) CONTENT – Such reports shall describe –
(A) progress of the development of more accurate diagnostic tools that are
more useful in the clinical setting; and
(B) the promotion of public awareness and physician education initiatives to
improve the knowledge of health care providers and the public regarding
clinical and surveillance practices for Lyme disease and other tick-borne
disorders.
(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. – There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this Act, $250,000 for each of the fiscal years
2003 and 2004. Amounts appropriated under this subsection shall be used for
the expenses and per diem costs incurred by the Committee under this section
in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.),
except that no voting member of the Committee shall be permanent salaried
employee,
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR RESEARCH FUNDING.
There are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2007 to provide for research and educational activities
regarding Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders, and to carry out
efforts to prevent Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders.
SEC. 4 GOALS.
It is the sense of the Senate that, in carrying out this Act, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services (referred to in this section as the
“Secretary”), acting as appropriate in consultation with the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Director of the National
Institutes of Health, the Committee, and other agencies, should consider
carrying out the following:
(1) FIVE-YEAR PLAN. – It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary
should consider the establishment of a plan that, for the five fiscal years
following the date of the enactment of this Act, provides for the activities
to be carried out during such fiscal years toward achieving the goals under
paragraphs (2) through (4). The plan should, as appropriate to such goals,
provide for the coordination of programs and activities regarding Lyme
disease and other tick-borne disorders that are conducted or supported by
the Federal Government.
(2) FIRST GOAL: DIAGNOSTIC TEST. – The goal described in this paragraph is
to develop a diagnostic test for Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders
for use in clinical setting.
(3) SECOND GOAL: SURVEILLANCE AND REPORTING OF LYME DISEASE AND OTHER
TICK-BORNE DISORDERS. – The goal described in this paragraph is to
accurately determine the prevalence of Lyme disease and other tick-borne
disorders in the United States.
(4) THIRD GOAL: PREVENTION OF LYME DISEASE AND OTHER TICK-BORNE DISORDERS. –
The goal described in this paragraph is to develop the capabilities of the
Department of Health and Human Services to design and implement improved
strategies for the prevention of tick-borne diseases. Such diseases may
include Masters’ disease, ehrlichiosis, babesiosis, other bacterial, viral
and rickettsial diseases such as tularemia, tick-borne encephalitis, Rocky
Mountain Spotted Fever, and bartonella, respectively.
Passed the Senate October 17, 2002.
DR. BURRASCANO - VICTORY AGAIN!
The following is a letter sent to Lyme disease associations
from Dr. J. Burrascano, Long Island, New York.
Dear friends, J. Burrascano, Jr., M.D.
I just received the decision of the Appeal Board
who re-examined my New York State OPMC (Office of
Professional Medical Conduct) case, after the State
filed an appeal.
The Appeals Board agreed with ALL the findings of
the Hearing Committee that heard my case. Both the
Board and the Committee favoured me, and had no
problems with my methods in managing Lyme
disease. They succinctly stated that it is not the role
of the OPMC to pass judgement on what is a
scientific debate in the medical community, and how I
treat Lyme is not a matter of professional misconduct
or competency.
However, they did sustain the finding of several
relatively minor occurrences in relation to specific
cases, but not in relation to the overall approach to
Lyme. I will be placed on probation with a practice
monitor. The original penalty was to have this for six
months. The appeals board upheld this penalty BUT
they posed NO restrictions on my practice, NO
restrictions on how I manage my cases, and in their
written decision, the Commitee was quite
complimentary! This is a victory!
I have said this before, and I must say this again - I
definitely would not have gone through this if it was
not for all the support I got from all of you. Yes, I and
my legal team worked extraordinarily hard for a very
long time, but I could not and would not have been
able to continue if all of you did not offer friendship,
encouragement, and spiritual and financial support. I
realize quite clearly that this case represented far
more than just me - it represented the truth of Lyme,
uncovered the dirty tricks that have been played
against Lyme patients and LLMD's (Lyme-literate
medical doctors) by you-know-who(s), and helped to
focus all of us and propel us into a great, gigantic
push for our rights.
I have to say too, that the bigger good has been all
the positive activity that my case has generated -
politically, in the media, and most importantly - we
are now a force to reckon with. Truly, we have not
gone away, and we never will go away.
What is next? I have to move quickly to set in place
the monitoring system, and my legal team will be
meeting to discuss the best way for us to release the
court papers. We have to keep in mind that the
identities of the patients whose charts were examined
must be kept confidential.
All of us have to really raise the bar now on our.
reform activities, because until State Medical Boards
are revamped, all of this can and will happen again,
and anyone, including me can still be harrassed. We
must stay focused, remain a single-minded unified
force, and move ahead with our efforts to get our
knowledge of the truth of Lyme disease to ALL health
practitioners so Lyme will be better recognized and
treated.
Most of all, we cannot let the creeps keep any of us
from getting the treatment we need to prevent
worsening disability.
Yes, we have not, and will not go away! More to
come, stay tuned!
Love, hugs, and deepest, sincerest thanks to all of
you,
Dr. J. Burrascano.
A GREAT VICTORY FOR RHODE ISLAND LYME DISEASE PATIENTS
Lyme disease patients in Rhode Island had reason to
celebrate this summer as their state legislature
unanimously passed a law titled, "The Lyme Disease
Diagnosis and Treatment Act".
This law protects physicians in
Rhode Island from being subject to disciplinary
action from Rhode lsland's Board of Medical
Licensure and Discipline, solely for prescribing,
administering or dispensing long term antibiotic
therapy for a therapeutic purpose for a patient
clinically diagnosed with Lyme disease, as long as
this diagnosis and treatment plan has been
documented in the physician's medical record for
that patient. This law defines Lyme disease beyond
the Center for Disease Control (CDC) criteria.
In addition, an agreement was made with Blue
Cross/Blue Shield, Rhode lsland's largest health
insurer, that Blue Cross would adopt in its policy that
they may cover long term antibiotic therapy (meaning
administration of oral, intramuscular or intravenous
antibiotics, single or in combination, for periods
GREATER than four weeks), to control a patient's
symptoms determined by the physician as reasonably
related to Lyme disease.
The agreement also states that neither Blue Cross
nor the independent reviewer shall contest, reverse
or deny coverage based upon a physician's order of
long term antibiotic therapy solely on the grounds
that such treatment may be characterized as
investigational in nature.
Before the Bill was passed into law, two public
hearings were scheduled in April 2002. The first
hearing was held for patients and advocacy groups,
and the second hearing was for physician's
testimony.
Patients were asked to testify at at an April 8th hearing
in Warwick, Rhode Island, regarding their history and
problems that they have encountered including
misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment and insurance
company denials of antibiotic therapy. Another
hearing was held on April 17th at the University of
Rhode Island campus. Medical professionals from as
far away as California were invited to testify on all
aspects pertaining to Lyme disease, both
conservative and aggressive in their standard of care.
The Hearings
Over 250 people attended the first public hearing on
April 8th, with about 100 patients registered to
provide testimony.
Patient's stories filled many hours. About 50
patients spoke before the hearing was closed at 12:30
in the morning of April 9th, with the remaining
allowed to submit their testimony in writing. The last
person, Virginia Burkhardt came to testify with the
help of a walker and her teenaged children. As
Virginia concluded her testimony, her voiced cracked
with emotion, but she was full of determination as
she described how her children had to care for her
during their formative years, and how heartbreaking
this had been for her. When she began to get well
from her aggresive treatment, her children were very
happy, and would squeal with delight, "Mommy you
cleaned the house today! You cooked supper today!
You walked to the store today!" Then, Virginia was
indiscriminately cut off from her intravenous therapy
by her insurer, and regressed to her former, mostly
bedridden condition. Virginia Burkhardt's story was
clearly a call to action and a stark reminder of why
this Bill was needed.
The next hearing, held on April 17th heard from
many of America's leading Lyme disease specialists.
Dr. Steven Phillips, a physician and researcher from
Ridgefield, CT, provided reference after reference of
peer-reviewed studies demonstrating the existence of
persistent Lyme disease infections in patients. In
these studies, patients who had received extensive
treatment with antibiotics were found to still be
harbouring the Lyme disease bacteria, Borrelia
burgdorferi. The organism had been cultured from
tissues of the skin, lymph nodes, spleen, joints, and
eyes. In some of these cases, the patients even
tested negative on their Lyme disease blood tests.
Dr. Scott Hanson of Narragansett, Rhode Island was
so impressed, that he asked Dr. Phillips to come to
his hospital the next day to lead Grand Rounds at his
hospital.
Next, Dr. Ken Liegner, of Armonk, New York, who
also treats many Lyme disease patients, gave a slide
presentation showing many patients who needed
intravenous antibiotics in order to stay alive. Despite
the significant improvements these patients made
while on IV therapy, they were denied further
treatment by their insurance companies, and with all
appeals exhausted, thev died tragically. What made
these cases even more compelling, was that upon
autopsy, Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that
causes Lyme disease was cultured from the body
tissues of these patients. Dr. Liegner stated that the
treatment guidelines of the Infectious Diseases
Society of America (IDSA) for Lyme disease were
"fraudulent ... The problem is chronic persistent
denial of Lyme treatment, not chronic Lyme disease!"
The last physician to speak was Dr. Joseph
Burrascano of East Hampton, New York. Everyone
seemed re-energized because sifting before them was
the one physician who has been the focal point over
so much controversy over chronic Lyme disease. He
has treated thousands of Lyme disease patients from
all over the United States, and other countries as
well. He has authored treatment guidelines for Lyme
disease, and updates them frequently.
Dr. Burrascano related his US Senate Committee
testimony in 1993, and the controversy it had created
in the conservative medical community. He
described to the Senate Committee his success in his
aggressive approach to Lyme disease, but since
going public about his treatment protocol to the
highest level of government, he has faced
harassment ever since.
Dr. Burrascano concluded that the conditions he
faced in 1993 have remained virtually the same today
with the federal government doing little to improve
conditions for Lyme disease patients with chronic
Lyme disease.
Rhode Island ranks second in the nation for
number of reported cases of Lyme disease per capita.
Given these statistics, the passage of this law
represents the enormity of impact this has for the
state of Rhode Island. It should serve as a precedent
for other states throughout the country.