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.
