3 ms·
Was this after running tests that turned up nothing or did they just say "no, we don't believe you" from the start?
by bongodongobob 3y ago
Was this after running tests that turned up nothing or did they just say "no, we don't believe you" from the start?
- freedomben 3y agoI'm not GP but had similar experience, and yes they run every test they think is "reasonable" (i.e. insurance will approve) given the symptoms. Problem is it's a game of finding statistical outliers, and often these types of conditions cause only subtle changes to conditions. Mix with the problem that the statistical ranges are based on what labs are seeing in tests, but for some of the tests people usually only get them when they are having symptoms, which artifically pushes the outlying bands even further out so that "normal" includes a chunk of people that have the condition! And then even if they do find stuff, it's usually all about treating the symptoms and not the causes. Except nowadays only certain symptoms because we've decided that the small percentage of people who abuse some pharmaceuticals are a good enough reason to err on the side of denial to a legitimate person rather than granting to an illegitimate person. In no small part thanks to a DEA who will clap a well-meaning doctor in irons if they give t someone who shouldn't, but there's no penalty at all for withholding from someone who needs. It's no surprise which side they would rather err on and bet their medical license/livelihood on.