This is good example of how disastrous NHS can be (and it's not even that serious compared to horror stories that involve cancer) and makes me look at the flawed but also clearly superior US health system with renewed appreciation.
I think it's normal for the parents to resent the NHS for this, but from what I've read about about patient experiences, many US doctors believe "chronic lyme" is not a real diagnosis, and that TDOT blood test she took is not standard of care, so private insurers, wouldn't cover it either. So in the US, a patient would likely end up paying up to their deductible for all those tests that ruled out other things, and then still pay out of pocket for a specialist. I'm open to hearing otherwise, but just because the NHS experience was bad, doesn't give me confidence that the average US experience isn't also bad.
> The article makes several points about how the US medical establishment, including the US government, is doing better in this regard than NHS.
It claims that "US government agencies are taking tick-borne disease much more seriously", and that may be their words, but I challenge you to point to actions which support them. It also doesn't mention that Trump administration actions have decreased and destabilized overall federal support environments (NIH/CDC) that fund tick-related disease research.
I have a friend who's gone through a similar years-long journey with his daughter. In Silicon Valley, at least, the medical establishment spent years trying to gaslight the family about their daughter's symptoms.
I agree, much of what we knew about the USG position on health care research has recently been called into question, and so it may already be that the author's contention is untrue.
But on the flip side, the problem they describe with the NHS -- namely, that no means no, is less likely to happen in the US. And I think suggesting that there is just one 'medical establishment' in Silicon Valley is painting with far too broad a brush.
Our problem is probably more with particular insurance companies (UHC is so egregious, it is hard to be surprised that so many people were not horrified when their CEO was gunned down in broad daylight). But at least you can easily pick a new provider.
Ugh, I hear this from people in Canada too. I'm in the US, and given the decades long experiences with shoulder shrugs from medical experts around chronic health issues for myself and others, this comment really frustrates me. It is absolutely not superior. In fact I would argue that if the person in the article approached the same thing here, they'd never get the treatment they got through the NHS.
It took 5 years for my wife to get tested for rheumatoid arthritis (which she was finally diagnosed with after tests and exams proved it), and that's only because I kept insisting. The doctors here will easily hand wave any sort of complicated chronic illness. Mayo clinic - one of the top medical institutions in America - gave up on my dad's neurological illness. He was very active 3 years ago, today he is in a wheelchair. Diagnosis? Who knows, it's too complicated, they're not interested anymore.
In the US, if you actually care about fixing a problem, it really helps to do tests yourself privately and quickly if the doctor or specialist is unwilling. Let's say there are 30-50 blood tests that are relevant for a set of symptoms. I would do up to $500 worth of tests at a time, then repeat the loop, continuing with the next batch until an answer is found or until all applicable tests are exhausted. Each normal result helps refine the next batch.
citation needed? I'm a brit and will give you that the NHS has its failings but I hear bad things about the US system too. Probably the systems in France and Germany work better than either.
