The problem is that the test to determine 25(OH)D levels is very expensive ($150.00 - $200.00 each) and, therefore,
insurance companies (and Medicare/Medicaid) are reluctant to pay for them. Your doctor has to "battle" on your behalf to get them covered.
It's just another example of how our medical system is based upon the
treatment of disease rather than the
prevention of disease. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies make lots of money treating the adverse effects of vitamin D insufficiency and so the "vitamin D revolution" (like the vitamin revolution 25 years ago) will have to come from an informed public, not the medical/pharmaceutical/regulatory complex.
One thing to keep in mind. The public is correctly concerned about taking too much vitamin D via supplementation but (as Dr. McDougal says) there is no need to worry when "Mother Nature's way" - UVR-induced vitamin D - is utilized to attain/maintain an optimal 25(OH)D level (>120 nmol/L) year-round because there has
never been a report of toxicity from the vitamin D produced in the skin.
Which leads me to a question that has been bothering me for several years.
Since it it clear that all American's have low vitamin D levels; it is equally clear that UVR-induced vitamin D is the "safest and most biologically effective" way to attain/maintain optimal levels; and it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that indoor tanning salons are the ideal and cost-effective "resource" to be used in order to attain/maintain optimal vitamin D levels year-round;
WHY is the indoor tanning industry so persecuted?