Ticks aren't the only parasites living off patients

General or non-medical topics with information and discussion related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
Martian
Posts: 1944
Joined: Thu 26 Jul 2007 18:29
Location: Friesland, the Netherlands

Ticks aren't the only parasites living off patients

Post by Martian » Tue 27 Sep 2011 3:25

This is a "classic" controversial article. It surprised me it wasn't posted on LNE before, so here goes:


Source: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0312/096.html
Lyme Inc.

David Whelan 03.12.07

Ticks aren't the only parasites living off patients in borreliosis-prone areas.

Three years ago Heather Jenkins, a 30-year-old mom in Huntersville, N.C., was constantly fatigued and prone to colds. Her internist referred her to Dr. Joseph Jemsek, a self-described "Lyme Literate" doctor. During the initial consultation he asked if she had been bitten by a tick or gotten a rash. No, she replied, but she had gone camping once in Tennessee. He suggested she may have picked up Lyme disease there and sent her blood to a California lab that specializes in tests for tick diseases. A week later the test results came back: She had been infected by Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease.

Jemsek installed a tube in Jenkins' arm and every two weeks for a year and a half sold Jenkins a $3,000 course of Rocephin, a powerful antibiotic, to infuse on her own at home. When she developed infections around the catheter in her arm the nurse would switch it. When her arms wore out she got a port implanted in her chest. As she waited for Jemsek to treat her latest infection, she collapsed on the floor, vomiting. Drug-resistant bacteria had overtaken her entire body. Jenkins landed in a hospital intensive care unit for four weeks, barely surviving. A doctor at Carolina Medical Center, where she recovered, told her that their labs could find no evidence in her blood that she'd ever had Lyme. "I was outraged," she says, and is now suing Jemsek. The near-death odyssey cost her insurance company $400,000. The action is pending, and Jemsek has made no comment.

Lyme disease, with 20,000 cases reported annually, ranks low on the list of the most prevalent infectious diseases. But it ranks first in rancor generated in the medical community. The disease is caused by bacteria related to syphilis that enter the body through a tick bite. The typical Lyme infection responds to simple antibiotics, although symptoms like arthritis and fatigue may linger in a subset of patients. Researchers at academic medical centers who study the disease say that so-called chronic Lyme, or post-Lyme, is very rare, hard to detect and not treatable with any further doses of antibiotics. The mainstream doctors warn about an epidemic of bunk diagnoses and dangerous treatments. Insurers often refuse to cover the cost of treating chronic Lyme.

Arrayed against the establishment is a fraternity of Lyme specialists, many of whom have built large practices treating ostensible Lyme patients with expensive courses of antibiotics.

Last year the North Carolina state medical board brought Jemsek in for a disciplinary hearing. Ten patients testified to nightmarish experiences. A widower said his wife had died from a morphine overdose related to Jemsek's Lyme treatments. Jemsek disputed all the charges vigorously. He also had 200 supporters show up, many of whom believe he cured them of a terrible disease. The Lyme Disease Association, a group that supports Jemsek, says that 30 chronic Lyme doctors have been similarly targeted by medical boards. Jemsek ultimately received a "suspension with stay" that allows him to keep practicing.

The light penalty may reflect the power of Lyme support groups, which blast politicians with mail and phone calls to ensure their access to expensive care. Standing with them now is Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who has received awards from Lyme groups and late last year announced that he was investigating the Infectious Diseases Society of America, an 8,000-member organization of doctors trained to understand diseases like AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Their crime? Issuing Lyme treatment guidelines to doctors that warned against using long-term infused or oral antibiotics.

Blumenthal, who hasn't yet issued any lawsuits in the case, says that the IDSA's guidelines may be in violation of antitrust laws. "Lyme disease is an extraordinarily insidious and widespread problem in Connecticut. We want to make sure that patients and physicians have unfettered choices," he declares. Insurance companies, he goes on, may be colluding with the IDSA to deny care. It's an odd charge, since a 1996 policy statement from the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice says that treatment guidelines issued by medical societies do not limit competition. "You want medicine to advance by debate, not hampered by lawsuits," says Robert Buchanan, a medical-antitrust attorney in Boston.

Despite intimidation from elected officials like Blumenthal, the establishment has scored some hits against Lyme specialists. In 1993 Vithaldis Shah, a New Jersey doctor, had his license yanked for five years for sickening Lyme patients with long-term antibiotic treatments and receiving a payment from the infusion company. In 1996 a doctor in Michigan was suspended after conspiring with a home infusion company and misdiagnosing Lyme patients. In 2000 a study described the death of an anonymous woman from complications arising from treating unsubstantiated Lyme with antibiotics.

In Connecticut Dr. Charles Jones, a pediatrician, is under investigation by the state medical board for prescribing, over the phone, antibiotics for chronic Lyme to two children in Nevada, a desert state with few ticks. Jones, who pulled up to a June hearing in a stretch limo to the cheers of fans, has testified that he did not finalize a Lyme diagnosis until he saw the children in person. Since the hearings began, more upset patients have joined the action against Jones. Blumenthal, however, has criticized the medical board for its investigation.

Mainstream doctors say their guidelines are based on scientific evidence. An early study identified 25 patients with gallstones or bile blockage resulting from antibiotic treatment of unsubstantiated chronic Lyme. A more recent study of infused antibiotics published in the New England Journal of Medicine was cut short after Lyme sufferers with persistent symptoms did not respond to a course of antibiotics any better than they did to a placebo. One patient getting antibiotics had a pulmonary embolism; another had gastrointestinal bleeding.

Another paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine calls chronic Lyme a "functional somatic syndrome," similar to other nebulous ailments like Gulf War Syndrome, chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia. Another study in the same journal found that 60% of Lyme disease patients lacked any evidence of previous or active Lyme infections. Some of these patients suffered from depression, arthritis or other diseases. "There are lot of people who have fatigue or musculoskeletal pain. We want to help them but not with long-term antibiotics," says Dr. Gary Wormser, an infectious disease expert at New York Medical College who helped write the guidelines that prompted Blumenthal's attack. After the latest idsa guidelines came out in November, Wormser and his Valhalla, N.Y. lab were the target of a protest attended by hundreds of chronic Lyme patients and supporters; one sign said "Wormser Lies … Patients Die."

Many of the chronic Lyme patients are upset that their insurance companies won't cover unlimited treatments. WellPoint will pay for only four weeks of IV antibiotics, citing published peer-reviewed studies. But science is no match for the Internet, where Lyme patients swarm chat boards to bemoan the persecution of their doctors and egg on politicians. Some celebrities have joined in the fray, such as novelist Amy Tan and Daryl Hall of rock duo Hall and Oates, both of whom say they suffer from chronic Lyme.

Tan's doctor is Raphael Stricker, president of the International Lyme & Associated Diseases Society, which represents chronic Lyme doctors and patients. Stricker's San Francisco clinic also advertises its ability to treat obesity, infertility, erectile dysfunction and AIDS. In 1990 Stricker was forced out of UC, San Francisco after the school claimed he falsified data in what had been a seminal AIDS study. Before he discovered Lyme he spent two years as associate medical director at a penis enlargement clinic.

Stricker and many of his chronic Lyme allies send their blood tests to a California lab called Igenex, which was once investigated by Medicare and the state of California for pumping out too many positive tests. Nick S. Harris, chief executive of Igenex, says he passed both investigations easily, but in 2001 the federal Office of the Inspector General put Igenex on a list of noncompliant labs. It paid fines totaling $48,000. Harris says his firm has had no recent brushes with regulators. Harris says that his tests are more sensitive than ones given by lab giants Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp, yielding positive results 25% of the time. The big national labs typically return positive results 8% of the time. He acknowledges that his results are more open to interpretation, which could facilitate more positive diagnoses. "Patients, because of the Internet, have become my best salesmen," Harris says.

Jemsek, who in 2005 collected $6 million from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, is still practicing, having declared his earlier practice bankrupt. He opened a new cash-only practice, spending $8 million on a building with a waterfall and grand piano. On the Internet patients exchange tips about how to keep seeing him. In his statement to the medical board after the stayed suspension of his license, Jemsek, who declines to be interviewed, said: "I've got 400 letters of support here, many single-spaced and several pages long."

LymeH
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon 1 Mar 2010 16:41

Re: Ticks aren't the only parasites living off patients

Post by LymeH » Sat 1 Oct 2011 1:48

Martian wrote: Source: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0312/096.html
Lyme Inc.

David Whelan 03.12.07

Ticks aren't the only parasites living off patients in borreliosis-prone areas.


Despite intimidation from elected officials like Blumenthal, the establishment has scored some hits against Lyme specialists. In 1993 Vithaldis Shah, a New Jersey doctor, had his license yanked for five years for sickening Lyme patients with long-term antibiotic treatments and receiving a payment from the infusion company. In 1996 a doctor in Michigan was suspended after conspiring with a home infusion company and misdiagnosing Lyme patients. In 2000 a study described the death of an anonymous woman from complications arising from treating unsubstantiated Lyme with antibiotics.

... Blumenthal, however, has criticized the medical board for its investigation.

...
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/nyreg ... again.html

Doctor Can Practice Again
By ANDY NEWMAN
Published: December 02, 1996

A West Milford physician whose prescriptions may have contributed to the deaths of two patients has been allowed to resume practicing medicine by the state Board of Medical Examiners, The A.P. reported yesterday.

The doctor, Vithaldis J. Shah, had his license suspended in 1993 for misdiagnosing Lyme disease and taking kickbacks from companies that sold intravenous drug systems for home use. The suspension was for five years, but he was allowed to apply for limited privileges in January. A 1994 consent order said that Dr. Shah had prescribed medications that contributed to the deaths of two patients with known psychiatric histories.

Under the new agreement, Dr. Shah can practice only under the supervision of another doctor. He is also prohibited from treating Lyme disease or prescribing intravenous therapy without a second opinion from an infectious disease specialist.
Misdiagnosing Lyme disease to accept kickbacks from home infusion companies? Nice racket and these physician kickbacks won't show up in ProPublica Dollars for Docs databases.

Which home infusion companies were supplementing Dr. Shah's income?
.
Last edited by LymeH on Sat 1 Oct 2011 15:38, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Ticks aren't the only parasites living off patients

Post by Spanky » Sat 1 Oct 2011 2:53

"LymeHystorian":
Which home infusion companies were supplementing Dr. Shah's income?
Before his license was suspended in September, Dr. Vithaldis Shah, who has offices in West Milford and Pompton Plains, N.J., received $150 to $175 a week for each patient he referred for treatment to at least five companies that provide in-home treatment, according to the findings of a State Board of Medical Examiners administrative hearing.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/04/us/pr ... all&src=pm

I think that anyone who has been around Lymeland for a few years has heard of incidents like this one.

And I, for one, am not implying or suggesting...in any way...that something similar is going on with any of the business about the QMedRx/LLMD relationships that have been discussed in other threads here.

No evidence of that...that I can see.

What I am asking, though,is... surely, knowing of the previous history of these types of problems in Lymeland...and the perception issues that would undoubtedly result from their involvement with an infusion company...

...what on earth could these people possibly have been thinking?


User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Ticks aren't the only parasites living off patients

Post by Spanky » Sat 1 Oct 2011 15:01

(From the above LH-supplied link):
The controversy hasn't hindered marketers of home-IV services. Physicians note with concern the spread of toll-free numbers that purport to be Lyme disease information hotlines but actually are fronts for infusion firms, some of which sponsor Lyme disease support groups. Federal investigators say some companies have paid physicians for referrals, often disguising the kickbacks as consulting fees, stock options or research grants. In New Jersey, the state board of medical examiners has temporarily suspended physician Vithaldis Shah's license for allegedly reckless treatment of 22 patients indiscriminately diagnosed with Lyme disease, then put on long-term IV antibiotics and narcotics. Two died. Moreover, Shah had referred them to infusion companies that reportedly paid him $150 a week per patient--which would violate the state's laws against self-referral.
Yeah...note: "research grants"...if Stricker is referring patients to QMedRx, and QMedRx then turns around and sponsors Stricker's "research"...gives him some "grant"...

...then the "situation" looks very much like an attempt to create a legalized kick-back, with our favorite "medico/legal ethics expert" not only endorsing the arrangement...but actually participating.

That's what it looks like.
Equally lucrative, though medically far more controversial, are long-term antibiotic infusions for Lyme disease. Some doctors have put patients on IV therapy for three or four years in an effort to combat the debilitating joint pain, paralyzing headaches and lethargy associated with chronic Lyme, with home-infusion companies eager to accommodate. Trouble is, few Lyme experts believe that more than a month or two of infusions helps. And the potential complications can be significant. A dozen New Jersey youngsters with Lyme disease lost their gallbladders after lengthy infusions of Rocephin, an antibiotic commonly prescribed in 1990 and 1991. Physicians detected the problem and switched medications, and all recovered. However, such complications and cost concerns prompted the American College of Rheumatology to issue guidelines last fall limiting all antibiotic infusions for Lyme disease--a recommendation many insurers have adopted.
And what IS the rationale for putting a patient on iv beyond 1-2 months, anyway?

Why can't you then switch to orals?

I keep asking this...and never getting an answer.

Is it for the patient's benefit?

Or...the infusion company's?

LymeH
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon 1 Mar 2010 16:41

Re: Ticks aren't the only parasites living off patients

Post by LymeH » Sat 1 Oct 2011 15:42

LymeHystorian wrote:
Which home infusion companies were supplementing Dr. Shah's income?
.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Ticks aren't the only parasites living off patients

Post by Spanky » Sat 1 Oct 2011 19:30

"LymeHystorian":
Which home infusion companies were supplementing Dr. Shah's income?
Why do you ask? What's the point of that question?

LymeH
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon 1 Mar 2010 16:41

Re: Ticks aren't the only parasites living off patients

Post by LymeH » Sun 2 Oct 2011 16:33

Spanky wrote:
(From the above LH-supplied link):
The controversy hasn't hindered marketers of home-IV services. Physicians note with concern the spread of toll-free numbers that purport to be Lyme disease information hotlines but actually are fronts for infusion firms, some of which sponsor Lyme disease support groups. Federal investigators say some companies have paid physicians for referrals, often disguising the kickbacks as consulting fees, stock options or research grants.
Yeah...note: "research grants"...if Stricker is referring patients to QMedRx, and QMedRx then turns around and sponsors Stricker's "research"...gives him some "grant"...

...then the "situation" looks very much like an attempt to create a legalized kick-back, with our favorite "medico/legal ethics expert" not only endorsing the arrangement...but actually participating.

That's what it looks like.
Spanky wrote:"LymeHystorian":
Which home infusion companies were supplementing Dr. Shah's income?
Why do you ask? What's the point of that question?
If Dr. Shah was found to be receiving kickbacks from infusion companies, then it is possible that those same infusion companies are giving kickbacks to other LLMDs or researchers. It may be interesting to know which infusion companies were found guilty of paying direct kickbacks, or those disguised as stock options or research grants. Have those infusion companies been involved in any Lyme-related research studies? Which studies? Are other LLMDs or activist associations promoting or 'advertising' their services? Are there any conflicts with their board members? Lots of questions.
.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Ticks aren't the only parasites living off patients

Post by Spanky » Sun 2 Oct 2011 22:30

"LymeHystorian":
If Dr. Shah was found to be receiving kickbacks from infusion companies, then it is possible that those same infusion companies are giving kickbacks to other LLMDs or researchers.


Okay, thanks, LH...

...but that buisness with Shah was in 1993. 18 years ago.

QMedRx didn't even exist back then.
It may be interesting to know which infusion companies were found guilty of paying direct kickbacks, or those disguised as stock options or research grants.
Yeah...dunno about that one. It may be logical to infer that an individual's lack of ethics in the past might render his current activities suspect...say, oh, I dunno...if he was caught in the past fudging his research results...

But a corporation is an association of individuals, the composition of which certainly changes over time. I don't know if that same thought process works there.
Have those infusion companies been involved in any Lyme-related research studies? Which studies? Are other LLMDs or activist associations promoting or 'advertising' their services? Are there any conflicts with their board members? Lots of questions.
One of the things that jumped out at me in regard to the report concerning Shah...was that there were five separate companies involved. Looks like the practice was "endemic".

And by all accounts, the situation with the medical profession and "perks" with pharmaceutical companies and other related businesses has only gotten worse since '93.

But...in regard to the situation with Stricker/QMedRx...I would say that if he was referring patients to QMedRx, and then he accepted a research grant from them...

...then that grant certainly was something of value...

...and he should explain why it shouldn't be viewed as a kickback.

LymeH
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon 1 Mar 2010 16:41

Re: Ticks aren't the only parasites living off patients

Post by LymeH » Sun 2 Oct 2011 23:23

Spanky wrote:
One of the things that jumped out at me in regard to the report concerning Shah...was that there were five separate companies involved. Looks like the practice was "endemic".
...
But...in regard to the situation with Stricker/QMedRx...I would say that if he was referring patients to QMedRx, and then he accepted a research grant from them...

...then that grant certainly was something of value...

...and he should explain why it shouldn't be viewed as a kickback.
If there were five separate infusion companies in the New Jersey/New York area that were indeed found guilty of offering kickbacks to physicians, researchers and others, specifically LLMDs, then other studies and physicians that used these same infusion companies may also be suspect for receiving kickbacks.

There may be other studies that used infusion companies that have a similar setup as QMedRx. If a physician(s) accepted research grants from an infusion company, participated in research studies using the same company and outside of the research study group (mis)diagnosed people as needing long-term intravenous treatments, and then arranged for their patients to receive infusions from those same companies, that may raise some questions.

.

Post Reply