April 7, 2000
Dear Friend:
Thank you very much for your letter expressing concern about a current investigation by the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) regarding physicians who treat Lyme disease. I apologize for answering with a form letter. Unfortunately, the volume of mail I have received on this subject prevents a more personal reply.
I am concerned about whether these investigations are legitimate or an abuse of OPMC’s role. I have written to the New York State Health Commissioner Antonia Novello expressing my concern and asking for an explanation. I have enclosed a copy of the letter.
Please do not hesitate to contact me on any matter that concerns you.
Very truly yours,
Richard Gottfried
Chair
Assembly Committee on Health
March 3, 2000
Dear Dr. Novello (Antonia):
I have received an unusual number of inquiries and complaints from fellow legislators and individual New Yorkers about the Office of Professional Medical Conduct’s investigations and prosecutions of physicians who provide long-term antibiotic treatment of Lyme disease.
The concern raised is that these physicians are being singled out because they believe in the validity of a form of treatment that is not accepted by a portion of the medical establishment. Critics allege that OPMC is being used to further a campaign against a particular form of treatment that is unconventional but legitimate, and that patients’ freedom of choice of treatment is being interfered with to their detriment.
If any of this is true, it would be an abuse of OPMC’s power. Whether it is true or not, the prevalence of the concern seriously undermines the valuable work of OPMC. Resolving this matter and restoring confidence in OPMC is critically important.
Several factors have contributed to the belief that OPMC is being used for an inappropriate campaign. First, there is the perception that a substantial number of physicians who provide this treatment are currently the subject of OPMC investigations. Second, OPMC is using as a witness in some of these cases a physician who has, I understand, been actively involved in a campaign against long-term antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease. This would seem to be at odds with a fair and objective proceeding.
Third, the Health Department has responded to inquiries about these proceedings in a troubling way. Letters I have seen state that the Department’s “investigative strategy” for these cases has been to “formulat(e) what are the accepted standards of practice and care.” The letters then state:
In the case of Lyme disease, the Centers for Disease Control, American Lyme Disease Foundation, Medical Letter, and a host of other sources have provided guidance for the standard care of Lyme disease. Rarely, if ever, have these published guidelines indicated that anything more than two-three weeks of antibiotics are required to cure Lyme disease.
This seems to say that the Department’s investigative strategy is to identify and investigate physicians who follow a particular treatment methodology. The fact that this text has been removed from more recent correspondence does not change the fact that it was there in the first place.
I am not arguing for or against any particular form of treatment for Lyme disease, nor do I have any basis for arguing for or against the innocence of the particular physicians involved.
If the Department has some basis for believing that this treatment is in fact illegitimate and that providing it constitutes unprofessional medical conduct, then it has an obligation to explain that to the public and alert patients. If that is NOT the case, the Department ought to act quickly, publicly, and convincingly to demonstrate the legitimate basis for the proceedings.
I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with appropriate personnel of the Department.
Best regards.
Very truly yours,
Dick
Richard N. Gottfried
Chair
Assembly Committee on Health
cc. Anne Saile
Hank Greenberg
