The article addresses this issues: One clinician quoted in the book more or less admits defeat: “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”
But is it true that "it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment" or simply that established powers make more money by "modifying the kid"?
Costs are relative, and I think the point remains that the kid's parents are relatively powerless to alter the kid's environment significantly enough to solve the adhd problem. Thus, the decision of the cost/benefit analysis of modifying the environment vs modifying the kid falls to the "established powers", also known as, collective society.
As long as everyone with significant influence is comfortable with the status quo, there's little pressure to search for other options, even if many parents might prefer another option.