I am so sorry to be posting about this again!! My husband and I and our two boys have lyme. Our health insurance has been covering us for over a year now.
Our Insurance plan states they wont cover for an out of network doctor. And of course our LLMD is out of network. But I appealed it and they have been covering, like I said over a year now.
Now they are stopping coverage and told me that I need to appeal with alot more information to support why I have to see this LLMD.
So I need help, I want to just prove my point with the most factual information. I feel like I cant give up. This is for our Family and for Other lyme patients who have to go through this.
Out insurance company is saying that they have a infectious disease doctor in network that we could see to seek treatment. ANd they asked why do we drive this far to see our LLMD when they have a infectious disease doctor closer to us. ANd is in network.
I feel that they decided a year ago to accept my appeal and cover this doctor, they cant just stop coverage in the middle of treatment.
We have had so much improvement since seeing this doctor.
So please if anyone has any good information to offer so that I could use it to support our reason of why we are seeing our LLMD please let me know!
Our insurance is united health care. And they really seemed deteremined they are going to deny my appeal. So I really need to get some good information to back me up!
I am starting to collect and write my denial letter this weekend. So if anyone has been in my shoes and has any advice. Please send it my way!
Thanks again!
Posts: 61 | From ILLINOIS | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
SForsgren
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 7686
posted
Sadly, if your policy did not cover out of network doctors to begin with, I don't think that you will have much chance of getting the denial overturned. So many times, people are within the stated policy guidelines and still get denied. I wish you the best and hope it works out.
-------------------- Be well, Scott Posts: 4617 | From San Jose, CA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sorry to hear about your recent issue with good old UH.
Yes, typically insurance companies go by the book on their guidelines.
I would urge you to appeal this though under the circumstances. Yes, it will require you spend a lot of time coming up with information and most likely they will still deny it but you never know.
I would check out ILADS site www.ilads.org Explain to UH that there are two standards of care for lyme disease and that your family has benefited from long term treatment...back that up with your reiterating the improvement you have all had and the dates specifically.
Explain as well that there are very few LLMDs and for that reason there are not a lot of options for you anyway but to find an in network specialist in this arena is impossible.
There are a lot of links here on the lymenet site under Legal Resources as well as the page with all of TinCup's links. If you need help finding them after poking around a bit let me know.
I just think you have to at least try with an appeal otherwise you will always wonder would they have paid. Insurance companies definitely will try any way they can to get out of paying. You need to take a stand and let them know you won't take it laying down.
No your provisions do not allow for out of network physicians but Lyme is a different story. Obviously they were willing to pay for a year so I guess my question for them would be 'what has changed' in their eyes?
Take care and I hope you get a resolution in your favor.
-------------------- �Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right.� - Ezre Taft Benson Posts: 655 | From NC, Exit 88 on the Deer SuperHighway | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Melanie Reber
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 3707
posted
Good morning BB,
You just may find the LymeTimes insurance issue very helpful for this.
It can be found and ordered through the California LDA: www.lymetimes.org
It contains many articles and forms with practical information to fight insurance issues.
My best to you and your family, Melanie
Posts: 7052 | From Colorado | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
david1097
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 3662
posted
The question in their mind is why is continued use of the specialist Dr required if it has already been so long. Lyme SHOULD have been successfully treated by now (at least in most cases, and in their mind).
In a worse case situation If you do end up seeing the ID, I would try to reach an agreement with him/the insurance company, that if you go with his recommendations and a relapse occurs, that in the interest of quality of life, the original Dr again be used or at least be used as consultant as he is the most familiar with the case.
Many ID's do know about Lyme and the problem of chronic lyme. Most however will not admit it in public as they must basically follow the IDSA guidelines or be questioned about what they are doing and why they are doing it. This being said, IDSA does recognize relapse (but goes way out of its way to NOT talk about "chronic". Incidentally, even Steere DOES ACKNOWLEDGE chronic lyme). A relapse is an acceptable diagnosis under IDSA, even though the ID will say that you are already cured or never even had it when you first meet him.
IF he says that you never had it, discuss with him the FACT that a significant documented improvement has occured and that the treatment that was given caused that to occur. It may not be Lyme but it might be something that responds like lyme. Based on the symptoms and test resutl, you can likely pick from a bunch of infections
In order to validate a relapse you need to agree on a set of metrics (or references) by which the relapse can be measured. This may be as simple as using your insurance approved GP who sees you on a regular basis to document the improvement/decline. I am quite sure that it is not acceptable for relapse to be measured by you saying that you are feeling worse, you will need a Dr to document it.
From that point there is positive proof if the standard of care that is being given need to be modified.
I don't know how it will work out but this seems the most logical approach if you are faced with having to disconnect from your current Dr.
Quite often ID's are uncomfortable talking about Lyme. As a result, try to be cordial and ask questions but don't question what he says or argue with him, remember, he may just be repeating his orders (based on the guidelines) and he himself may not even like them. Still there are loop holes (aka accomodation for rare and atypical cases) built into the guidelines (as they are only guidelines), it is only a question of how high you have to jump (aka. level of proof) to reach them.
Unfortunately, the level is often so high that most people never reach them. In your case you hav a proven success, so this is absolute proof that you had something an the treatment has been successful thus far.
good luck
Posts: 1184 | From north america | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I moved to AZ from CA in Oct 2005. The insurance has been covering the meds that my LLMD recommends.
I recently received a call from the insurance office. The director wants me to see an Infectious Disease doctor and continuing treatment seems to be the subject.
I, too, have been looking for documentation that will help. I have yet to come up with it.
I did print out the letter by Dr. Stricker re: lyme denialist.
But, I am looking for documentation re: test results showing that long term abx do help, documentation re: the lab I used being more efficient, etc. (I can type things out but still have difficulty reading and processing articles)
I do not know if all of this will help. I can only hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
After being bedridden for the most part from Oct. 2001 until the summer of 2005, it feels great to be able to get out and about for an hour or two each day in my power chair.
The thought of being off meds and being bedridden and in lala land again is down right scary.
It may be the medication is the issue with you and your family too.
I will let you know if I find the documentation.
KAM (katherine)
Posts: 89 | From AZ | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
bettyg
Unregistered
posted
why can't you print off Dr B's 2005 lyme guideline/treatment found in TREEPATROL'S NEWBIE LINKS? that documentation from a MD, etc. just my thought. Bettyg
IP: Logged |
MagicAcorn
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8786
posted
BB & Happy Camper - This is a 2006 document that clearly states the existence of chronic lyme disease. Maybe some supportive data in here for you two. If they have disseminated and chronic Lyme Borreliosis in Norway why not Illinois ?
Disseminated and chronic Lyme borreliosis in Norway, 1995 - 2004
K Nyg�rd, A Broch Brants�ter, R Mehl
Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Infectious Disease Control, Oslo, Norway
Lyme borreliosis is the most common tickborne infection in Norway. All clinical manifestations of Lyme borreliosis other than erythema migrans are notifiable to Folkehelseinstituttet, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. During the period 1995-2004 a total of 1506 cases of disseminated and chronic Lyme borreliosis were reported. Serological tests were the basis for laboratory diagnosis in almost all cases. The annual numbers of cases showed no clear trend over the period, but varied each year between 120 and 253 cases, with the highest number of cases reported in 2004. Seventy five per cent of cases with information on time of onset were in patients who fell ill during the months of June to October. There was marked geographical variation in reported incidence rates, with the highest rates reported from coastal counties in southern and central Norway. Fifty six per cent of the cases were in males and 44% in females. The highest incidence rate was found in children aged between 5 and 9 years. Neuroborreliosis was the most common clinical manifestation (71%), followed by arthritis/arthralgia (22%) and acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans (5%). Forty six per cent of patients were admitted to hospital. Prevention of borreliosis in Norway relies on measures to prevent tick bites, such as use of protective clothing and insect repellents, and early detection and removal of ticks. Antibiotics are generally not recommended for prophylaxis after tick bites in Norway.
Introduction The incidence of Lyme borreliosis in different areas of Norway reflects the distribution of the tick vector, Ixodes ricinus. The prevalence of Borrelia sp. in I. ricinus has been investigated by phase contrast microscopy in many tick-infested locations along the Norwegian coast. Generally, the prevalence has been found to be 20%-30% in nymphs and 40%-60% in adult ticks [1]. No larvae examined were infected. Small rodents and birds are considered to be the main reservoir hosts in Europe [2]. The first description of erythema migrans with meningopolyradiculitis after tick-bite in Norway was published in 1955[3]. Cases of Lyme borreliosis were notified sporadically to the MSIS (Norwegian surveillance system for communicable diseases) from 1983, under the category `other infectious diseases'. Since 1991 it has been a specified notifiable disease. In the early years of notification, all manifestations of Lyme borreliosis were notifiable, including erythema migrans. The case definition was revised with the implementation of the Infectious Disease Contol Act in 1995, after which only disseminated and chronic manifestations remained notifiable, (that is,. cases of erythema migrans were excluded). In this article, we review surveillance data for disseminated and chronic Lyme borreliosis in Norway during the ten year period 1995-2004 in order to examine trends over time, geographical distribution, characteristics of patients and their clinical presentation.
Materials and methods The MSIS (Norwegian surveillance system for communicable diseases) is administered by the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at Folkehelseinstituttet (the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, NIPH) in Oslo. Laboratories of clinical microbiology and clinicians are required by law to notify cases of certain infectious diseases to the MSIS central unit at NIPH. The reports from the laboratory and clinician are combined and registered as one case at NIPH.
We reviewed cases of disseminated and chronic Lyme borreliosis notified in Norway during the ten year period 1995 to 2004. The case definition for laboratory confirmed Lyme borreliosis was clinically suspected disseminated or chronic disease, like acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans (ACA), arthritis or neurological disease and demonstration of the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi or definite antibody titres. Population data from Statistics Norway (www.ssb.no) were used to calculate annual incidence rates.
In order to study the geographical distribution of cases over time, we mapped the cases in the two years with the highest incidence rates. The maps were created as dot-density maps in ArcGIS 9, where one case was presented as one dot randomly placed within the border of the municipality of residence. Based on information on clinical signs and symptoms as described by clinicians on the notification forms, patients were put into the following main categories: neuroborreliosis (including meningitis, facial paralysis and meningopolyradiculitis), arthritis, acrodermatitis chronica atrophans (ACA), unknown and other. Cases with diagnosis based on analysis of cerebrospinal fluid (with or without confirmatory results from serum) were classified as neuroborreliosis regardless of information of other concomitant clinical manifestations.
Results During the 10-year period 1995 to 2004, a total of 1506 cases of disseminated and chronic Lyme borreliosis were notified to NIPH. The number of cases varied between 120 and 253 annually, with the highest number of cases in 2004 [FIGURE 1].
Seasonality Date of symptom onset was available for 1014 cases. There was a clear seasonal pattern, with the number of cases starting to increase in week 20 (mid-May) and peaking in week 35 (August) [FIGURE 2]. Seventy five per cent (759/1014) of cases with information on time of onset fell ill during the months of June to October. The seasonal distribution of cases by onset remained similar during the ten year period [FIGURE 2].
Geographical distribution Of the 1506 cases reported, 1200 (79.7%) were reported as having been infected in Norway, 23 (1.5%) during travel abroad, and for 283 (18.8%) this information was missing. There was marked geographical variation in reported incidence rates, with the highest incidence reported from coastal counties in southern and central parts of Norway [FIGURE 3]. Six counties in these areas accounted for 75% of the cases (these counties account for only 28% of the population in Norway). The highest annual number of cases were reported in 1998 (n=179) and 2004 (n=253). The geographical distribution of cases was not markedly different in these years [FIGURE 4].
Age and sex distribution Fifty six per cent of the cases were in males and 44% in females. The highest incidence rate was found in children aged between 5 and 9 years (average annual IR 8.0/100 000) [FIGURE 5].
Clinical symptoms and diagnosis The most common clinical presentation in this study was neuroborreliosis, reported in 1070 of the patients (71.0%), with facial palsy as the most common reported presentation of neuroborreliosis (403 cases). Arthritis or athralgia was reported in 329 patients (21.8%), and acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans (ACA) in 75 patients (5.0%). For 65 patients (4.3%) more unspecific clinical symptoms were reported (e.g. fever, headache, myalgia, rash), and for 28 (1.9%) no clinical information was available. Ten cases (0.7%) had cardiac manifestations as a main or concomitant finding. For some cases, a combination of clinical manifestations were reported.
Forty six per cent of patients were admitted to hospital. The hospitalisation rate was highest for patients with neurological symptoms (81%). The high proportion of neurological disease in children below 10 years of age with disseminated and chronic Lyme borreliosis (92.8%) explains the high rate of admission to hospital in children under ten years of age (79%).
Demonstration of Borrelia-specific antibodies was the basis of diagnosis in 1491 cases, microscopy in 2 cases, nucleic acid detection in 2 cases and unknown in 11 cases. Diagnosis was based on analysis of serum in 730 cases, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in 429 cases, blood and spinal fluid in 328 cases, synovial fluid in 5 cases, skin biopsy in one case and unknown in 12 cases. According to the notification forms, neuroborreliosis was laboratory confirmed by demonstration of antibodies in CSF in 429 cases, serum and CSF in 326 cases, only serum in 304 cases and was not reported for 7 cases.
Discussion Borrelia infection is the most common notifiable tickborne disease in Norway, and the annual number of cases of disseminated and chronic lyme borreliosis in Norway has been fairly stable during the study period 1995 to 2004. However, in 2004 we observed an almost twofold increase of cases compared to mean annual cases during the last ten years. It is not yet known if this reflects a true increase in incidence or increased rates of detection or reporting. We have, however, no data that indicate any changes in diagnostic methods or reporting practices that could have caused the increase in number of notified cases we observed in 2004.
Erythema migrans is the most common clinical manifestation of Lyme disease. However, it is also the least severe presentation and the diagnosis cannot easily be confirmed by laboratory testing, as most patients do not demonstrate an antibody response at the time of diagnosis. For these reasons, Lyme disease with erythema migrans as the only manifestation has not been notifiable in Norway during the study period 1995-2004. However, in 1993 and 1994, all clinical manifestations of Lyme borreliosis were notifiable, and at that time erythma migrans represented 43%-59% of notified cases where clinical information was available[4,5]. This is in accordance with routine passive surveillance data from other countries [6,7], but lower than reported in enhanced clinical surveillance[8] or community-based cohort studies[9]. In general there is probably a higher degree of underreporting when diagnosis is based on clinical symptoms alone, as is oftenthe case with erythema migrans lesions.
Antibiotic treatment is recommended for erythema migrans and is generally believed to protect against disseminated and chronic manifestations. However, Norwegian surveillance data do not contain reliable information on the frequency of prior erythema migrans or noticed tick bites in patients with manifestations of disseminated and chronic disease. It is, however, well known that many, if not most, tick bites go unnoticed and that disseminated and chronic disease can develop without history of tick bite or erythema migrans.
Although Lyme borreliosis is most commonly diagnosed during the summer season, cases are reported throughout the year, probably because unspecific symptoms cause both doctor and patient delay, and also because of the long incubation period of some clinical manifestations. Clinicians should therefore consider disseminated or chronic Lyme borreliosis in their differential diagnosis during all months of the year in patients who live in or have travelled to endemic areas along the coast in southern and middle parts of Norway (Figure 4), particularly in patients with neurologic, rheumatic and dermatological signs and symptoms compatible with late onset Lyme disease.
Several tick species have been found in Norway. However the main vector for transmission of Lyme borreliosis to humans is the hard tick I. ricinus. The tick can be found in coastal areas with relatively mild winters in the southern and middle part of Norway [10], and this is also reflected in the geographical distribution of Lyme borreliosis cases [FIGURES 3,4].
In 1943 Tambs-Lyche published an extensive survey of the distribution of I. ricinus in Norway based on collections of ticks from domestic animals and information concerning the distribution of the tickborne disease babesiosis in cattle[11]. The survey found I. ricinus distributed in a narrow zone along the southern coast between the Oslofjord and J�ren, and along the western coast in a relatively wide zone including the innermost regions of most of the fjords and neighbouring valleys. Both ticks and babesiosis were absent from the treeless J�ren. Tambs-Lyche pointed out the importance of vegetation for tick distribution, since it has a modifying effect on the humidity of a habitat. Later, I. ricinus became established in those areas where trees had been planted or where bushes and trees had been established. In the periphery of its normal range in Norway, I. ricinus is found in scattered, suitable localities.
Recent studies from Sweden have concluded that one of the main reasons for the observed increase in the density and geographical ranges of I. ricinus is relatively mild winters, and that this is a possible explanation for the increase in both TBE and Lyme borreliosis cases[12,13]. Other factors such as human behaviour and host animal populations may also have played a part, and these may also be partly related to climate. However, the effect of climate has been disputed by others [14,15]. If climate affects the density and geographic distribution of ticks, it would be expected to also affect the incidence of both Lyme borreliosis and TBE.
More recent studies of ticks in Norway [1,16] do not show any expansion of the range of I. ricinus since 1940. On the other hand, there is a marked rise in the density of the tick population in many parts of its range, especially on islands, due to changes in animal husbandry practices, in vegetation, and in the distribution and population densities of host animals such as the roe deer and the European elk.
Increased tick populations may lead to an increased annual spreading of ticks by birds within a country. More than 4000 migratory birds have been investigated for ticks, and the transport of ticks on migrating birds to Norway is well documented [17]. Climatic and environmental factors may explain why tick populations have not so far become established outside their previous endemic areas.
There is no available vaccine for Lyme borreliosis. Prevention relies on measures to prevent tick bites, such as use of protective clothing and insect repellents, and early detection and removal of ticks. Antibiotics are generally not recommended for prophylaxis after tick bites in Norway.
1. Mehl R. Ticks and borreliosis in Norway - Epidemiology. The Norwegian Medicines Control Authority 1999, 22; Suppl 1:15-16. 2. Gern L, Estrada-Pena A, Frandsen F, Gray JS, Jaenson TGT, Jongejan F, Kahl O, Korenberg E, Mehl R, Nuttall PA. European reservoir hosts of Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato. Zentralblatt fur Bakteriologie-International Journal of Medical Microbiology Virology Parasitology and Infectious Diseases. 1998, 287:196-204. 3. Bj�rnstad RT, MOSSIGE K. Erythema Chronicum Migrans with Meningopolyradiculitis. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1955, 75:264-265. 4. Hasseltvedt V. Lyme borreliosis 1994 . MSIS-rapport (Communicable Disease Report, Norway). 1995;23:13. 5. Hasseltvedt V. Lyme borrelio sis 1993. MSIS-rapport (Communicable Disease Report, Norway). 1994;22:13. 6. Lyme disease - United States, 2001-2002. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004; 53:365-9. 7. Smith R, O'Connell S, Palmer S. Lyme disease surveillance in England and Wales, 1986 1998. Emerg Infect Dis. 2000;6:404-407. 8. Mehnert W, Krause G. Surveillance of Lyme borreliosis in Germany, 2002 and 2003. Euro Surveill. 2005 Apr;(10)4:83-5. 9. Gerber MA, Shapiro ED, Burke GS, Parcells VJ, Bell GL. Lyme disease in children in southeastern Connecticut. Pediatric Lyme Disease Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996 Oct 24;335(17):1270-4. 10. Mehl R, Sandven P, Braathen LR. The tick Ixodes ricinus, a spirochaeta vector. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1987:107: 1642-4, 1651. 11. Tambs-Lyche H. Ixodes ricinus and piriplasmosis in Norway. Norsk Vet Tidsskr. 1943, 337-366, 401-441, 449-506, 513-542. 12. Lindgren E, Talleklint L, Polfeldt T. Impact of climatic change on the northern latitude limit and population density of the disease-transmitting European tick Ixodes ricinus. Environ Health Perspect. 2000 Feb;108(2):119-23. 13. Lindgren E, Gustafson R. Tick-borne encephalitis in Sweden and climate change. Lancet. 2001 Jul7;358: 16-8. 14. Randolph SE. Evidence that climate change has caused 'emergence' of tick-borne diseases in Europe? Int J Med Microbiol. 2004;293 Suppl 37:5-15. 15. Randolph SE. The shifting landscape of tick-borne zoonoses: tick-borne encephalitis and Lyme borreliosis in Europe. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2001 Jul 29;356:1045-56. 16. Mehl R. The distribution and host relations of Norwegian ticks (Acari, Ixodides). Fauna Norvegica Serie B, Norwegian journal of entomology. 1983;30:46-51. 17. Mehl R, Lid G, Michaelsen J. Ticks (Acari, Ixodides) on migratory birds in Norway. Fauna Norvegica Serie B, Norwegian journal of entomology. 1984;31:46-58.
This document is also available in printer friendly pdf format Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on the behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the information in this journal. The opinions expressed by authors contributing to Eurosurveillance do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the European Commission, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control ( ECDC ), the Institut de veille sanitaire ( InVS ), the Health Protection Agency ( HPA ) or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated
Eurosurveillance [ISSN] - �2006. Tous droits r�serv�s. All rights reserved.
-------------------- Posts: 1279 | From In hiding | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was not able to read all of the article, but I did notice that they used serology tests.
My serology test with Unilab, Qwest and Igenex came back negative.
The western blot was positive. So, I can see the insurance denying treatment due to serology test.
I did print out the guidelines and gave them to my primary doc. I also copied the Lyme Times information on getting IV rocephin approved by insurance and gave that to my primary doc.
The director is still wanting to stop treatment as far as I can see at this time and this is why I am being sent to an infectious disease doc.
The insurance case worker said she was on the phone for two and a half hours trying to set up an appointment for me.
She said she had some doctor's tell her that they do not treat lyme disease. She was surprised that they could choose not to do this.
Posts: 89 | From AZ | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I printed out the letter from Dr. STricker, the conference information from ILADS and LDA web site and something else.
I am planning on sending it to the insurance company, my local primary doc and the infectious disease doc they are sending me to.
I don't know if it will help or not. I started in November with this insurance company. So, it has been under a year.
Posts: 89 | From AZ | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to give you the bad news but what is happening to you is happening all over the country. The insurance racket has decided they are not going to pay for lyme disease treatment and are going to try to get out of as much of it as possible by any way possible. So there are two possiblities. !. See a Lawyer. These people have already made up their minds and the appeal process and all the gook you spend your time getting and the rest of it is a waste of time. But you have to do it. 2.Are you on IV or on oral abx??? You may want to just figure out a way via Canada, Mexico or the internet to get the meds that the insurance companies will not pay for or find some substitutes that you can pay for and get them. You cannot simply sit there and go down hill. Good Luck.
-------------------- Thomas Parkman Posts: 341 | From Columbia SC 29206 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I also printed out Sam Donte's article that I found again today while browsing lymenet flash.
Parkman....sad but true
This is also a whole family we are talking about. They probably just need a year or two of medications and then will be fine. My prayer is that the insurance company provides this.
I will need to look into plan B for getting the meds if the insurance does decide to stop paying for them.
At this point just putting groceries on the table is a big obstacle so this added obstacle seems overwhelming.
But, I have seen big obstacles overcome in the past....finding a doc and a dx was a biggee, getting a power chair was a biggee and has made a big difference in my life, finding a primary to work with the lyme doc was a big obstacle, finding transportation to get places since I no longer have the funds to afford a vehicle, finding affordable housing, getting help since I no longer am able to do household chores, getting Rosie, the service dog,etc. etc.
I have had lots of things to be thankful for. I wonder if writing to the state politicians would help continue insurance coverage?
Hmm. That is a thought.
Posts: 89 | From AZ | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Happy Camper! Thank you for the thought! I am so sorry for all that you have been through! It sounds like you keep a positive attitude! That is great!
I have printed multiple articles. I have a THICK stack of articles. Supportive information on lyme!!!
I am just going to overwhelm them with so much information. I have my letter typed up. I am re-reading it and I think I am going to send it all out today! I am sending it out certified, so that I get confirmation letter stating they received the packet of information and my letter.
Wish me luck! I will keep you all informed when I hear something!!!
Posts: 61 | From ILLINOIS | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[confused]](graemlins/confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic