> I've always wondered: is there some benefit from an HMO standpoint to
having
> a diagnosis of TM compared to MS? Or is this the conservative approach
> to a diagnosis.
Well, all I know is what my neurologist told me; this is just his opinion --
don't know if the medical community as a whole thinks this way. I asked him
about the possibility of MS because I had developed new areas of numbness. He
said we could run tests again (the initial ones showed no lesions and the
spinal fluid was fine), but he knew I did not like to take medicines, and he
felt it would not be worth a diagnosis of MS if I did not want to change
treatment, because he said an MS diagnosis can wreak havoc with some insurance
companies, causing rates to go up or an inability to get insurance if one had
to change companies (due to job change or whatever). He had one patient who
thought she had developed MS (I don't remember if her initial diagnosis wasTM
or not) and wanted to be tested again. He did run the tests and they indicated
MS this time. He got a call from her several months later asking him to change
the diagnosis because her insurance had gone up several hundred dollars, and,
of course, he couldn't do that then. He left the decision in my lap; he would
run the tests if I wanted, but he wanted me to know of the potential problems.
So, I felt since I was "holding my own" and had not had another full-fledged
attack, I'd wait it out a while.
I really think, as far as initial diagnosis, they go by the tests results --
lesions showing up on the MRI, spinal fluid problems, etc. I don't think the
diagnosis would be affected by the insurance co. -- I certainly hope not,
anyway!
Barbara H.