7 ms·

I've had a similarly priced full day medical in the UK (with Preventicum) although it included (almost) full body MRI (less annoying than I thought it would be!

I've had a similarly priced full day medical in the UK (with Preventicum) although it included (almost) full body MRI (less annoying than I thought it would be!), ultrasounds of abdominal organs, lung capacity tests, and various such things. I am very glad I did. While people are often warned away from such things due to the risk of finding things that could cause concern but which are not strictly dangerous, it has hugely put my mind at rest given some health problems I was having. It is also amazing to have full body medical grade MRI scans I can navigate on my computer(!) I can't think of a huge deal to say about the experience, but I am happy to answer questions if anyone has any.

chrisseaton 7y ago
I've often wondered about this - I don't know anyone myself in the UK who gets a 'yearly physical'. Even middle class people like this seems to be aimed at. I didn't even do one when I was in the military. I sort of assumed it was one of those things that people did in the movies as a plot device. Like normal people having a lawyer on retainer so they can say 'call my lawyer'. Is this something I should be doing? Why's isn't my surgery inviting me to do it if it's beneficial?
- stephen_g 7y ago
  Same in Australia. Here you just go to the doctor when you notice something that’s not right. Apart from going to the dentist, really the only medical thing that most healthy people would do fairly regularly is a skin check/mole scan every couple of years, since melanoma is such a risk here.
- 7777fps 7y ago
  It's not normal in the UK at all to have that kind of check-up, especially not pre-emptive MRIs. Screen too early and often can lead to too much preventative medicine and procedures, which ironically while preventing specific things aren't without their downsides and can cause an overall lower quality of life. Sometimes it can feel like the NHS swings the other way and is hesitant to refer for diagnosis even when there is an issue, but in general they try to balance things for everyone. Also, what can be beneficial for an individual may not be beneficial for society as a whole. That said, if something feels wrong, then please do keep on at your doctor to get a diagnosis. It can be feel like you have to borderline harass doctors to get referrals sometimes in the UK but if there is an issue then don't give up. I know I was on deaths' door when the hospital finally diagnosed me properly. My GP was still telling me I just had intercostal muscle pain and to take painkillers and come back later even after the hospital had figured it out.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    Regular bowel cancer and cervical cancer screenings are provided by the NHS - the former from 50 here in Scotland (possibly because of our atrocious diets).
    - zimpenfish 7y ago
      They were going to lower it to 50 (from 60) in England too[1] but they seem to have opted for 55 instead. [1] "In August 2018, ministers agreed that in the future bowel cancer screening in England will start at the age of 50." https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bowel-cancer-screening-programme-overview https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bowel-cancer-screening-programme...
- distances 7y ago
  Same in the European countries I've lived in: a "check" isn't a thing, except for some specific things like certain cancer screenings. You visit the doctor when you're sick, otherwise you don't. I think it's a reasonable expectation that your body will signal if something needs to be looked after.
- rjsw 7y ago
  There is a trend to require medical checks before doing sport once you are at a "serious amateur" level or above.
- rblatz 7y ago
  Typically my annual physical is blood work (cholesterol, blood sugar, liver enzymes), blood pressure, chest exam (heart/lungs), check for testicular cancer, and soon a finger in the butt to check the rough size of my prostate.
- zimpenfish 7y ago
  > I don't know anyone myself in the UK who gets a 'yearly physical' Partner did as part of the life+health insurance package provided by $company. But it was the normal blood work, blood pressure, eyes, hearing, lungs, heart, etc. kind of thing; nothing like the Elitra shebango.
- kube-system 7y ago
  I would have expected the opposite from a country where everyone could get one for free. Or maybe here in the US it is more common because healthy people want to get something for the exorbitant amount of money they spend on insurance.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
raihansaputra 7y ago
I do expect your level of tests/diagnostics for the price mentioned. And the value of finding things to be not concerned about is close to priceless I think. You should try 3d printing one of your own organs just for novelty!
CapriciousCptl 7y ago
Doctor here. You didn't have a false positive-- of course you feel better off. But, you're not physically better off because nothing came back as positive or treatable. Some will start in your shoes, but be unlucky and have a false positive. They would be mentally and physically worse off as potentially inconclusive tests followed by potentially unnecessary procedures resulted in, say, removing one of your kidneys. Yes, that will only happen very rarely and yes I've seen it happen. There can be kind of a two prong "test" to determine if screening is harmful. Physically, is it a good idea? Answer is probably no. We're not in a scarcity situation really where the "prestige" demographic isn't getting recommended to get appropriate tests based on their risk factors (on the other hand, some of our poorest aren't getting them but that's not an issue solved here). The other side is mentally. Again, I'd argue that people with a clean unnecessary screening got out lucky. They'd be mentally much worse off had something come back positive. Bizarrely, there's new data suggesting that even fixing known problems, like coronary artery blockages doesn't improve mortality in a lot of situations you'd think it would. That suggests that we're doing too much screening in that case (I mean, if the treatment is worse than the disease... why screen?), not too little. As another example there is a well-known vascular surgery group going to churches under the pretense of "screening" for leg atherosclerosis, then performing high-margin, high-turnover, and unnecessary procedures on the very high "induced" false-positives. I also find it utterly bizarre that screening would include lung capacity testing. In an otherwise healthy adult who can say, climb a flight of stairs or something of the sort without getting shortness-of-breath, that test is completely meaningless and expensive from a "disease" perspective. On the other hand, it does give you a number to compare to your peer group, kind of like resting heart rate. On the other hand, resting heart rate is free, can be done yourself, and literally takes 15 seconds to measure. In the end, I'm not really against having these sort of "prestige" medical services available. Particularly because more choice is generally good-- and it's your body, you should do what you want with it (within reasonable bounds). But, everyone should educate themselves because on balance, I doubt people end up up feeling or being better off considering the ones who will have false positives.
- enchiridion 7y ago
  These type of arguments never sit right with me. It's my body, I'd like to know as much about it as possible. It's good to be aware of the risk, but at the end of the day it's my decision to take that risk on. One reason to screen more is that it provides incentive for better treatments. How many people would be researching new coronary artery treatments if we just started ignoring the disease?
jka 7y ago
Although there's a privacy policy published on their website, it sounds like there is a different consent-based policy which covers the detailed healthcare data they collect during testing. Are you able to share any of the privacy policy or assurances they provide regarding your medical data?
- petercooper 7y ago
  Unfortunately not. For better or worse, it didn't, and doesn't, concern me. That said, I don't recall there being any particular assurances about this matter during the process.

chrisseaton 7y ago

I've often wondered about this - I don't know anyone myself in the UK who gets a 'yearly physical'. Even middle class people like this seems to be aimed at. I didn't even do one when I was in the military. I sort of assumed it was one of those things that people did in the movies as a plot device. Like normal people having a lawyer on retainer so they can say 'call my lawyer'. Is this something I should be doing? Why's isn't my surgery inviting me to do it if it's beneficial?

stephen_g 7y ago
Same in Australia. Here you just go to the doctor when you notice something that’s not right. Apart from going to the dentist, really the only medical thing that most healthy people would do fairly regularly is a skin check/mole scan every couple of years, since melanoma is such a risk here.
7777fps 7y ago
It's not normal in the UK at all to have that kind of check-up, especially not pre-emptive MRIs. Screen too early and often can lead to too much preventative medicine and procedures, which ironically while preventing specific things aren't without their downsides and can cause an overall lower quality of life. Sometimes it can feel like the NHS swings the other way and is hesitant to refer for diagnosis even when there is an issue, but in general they try to balance things for everyone. Also, what can be beneficial for an individual may not be beneficial for society as a whole. That said, if something feels wrong, then please do keep on at your doctor to get a diagnosis. It can be feel like you have to borderline harass doctors to get referrals sometimes in the UK but if there is an issue then don't give up. I know I was on deaths' door when the hospital finally diagnosed me properly. My GP was still telling me I just had intercostal muscle pain and to take painkillers and come back later even after the hospital had figured it out.
- arethuza 7y ago
  Regular bowel cancer and cervical cancer screenings are provided by the NHS - the former from 50 here in Scotland (possibly because of our atrocious diets).
  - zimpenfish 7y ago
    They were going to lower it to 50 (from 60) in England too[1] but they seem to have opted for 55 instead. [1] "In August 2018, ministers agreed that in the future bowel cancer screening in England will start at the age of 50." https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bowel-cancer-screening-programme-overview https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bowel-cancer-screening-programme...
distances 7y ago
Same in the European countries I've lived in: a "check" isn't a thing, except for some specific things like certain cancer screenings. You visit the doctor when you're sick, otherwise you don't. I think it's a reasonable expectation that your body will signal if something needs to be looked after.
rjsw 7y ago
There is a trend to require medical checks before doing sport once you are at a "serious amateur" level or above.
rblatz 7y ago
Typically my annual physical is blood work (cholesterol, blood sugar, liver enzymes), blood pressure, chest exam (heart/lungs), check for testicular cancer, and soon a finger in the butt to check the rough size of my prostate.
zimpenfish 7y ago
> I don't know anyone myself in the UK who gets a 'yearly physical' Partner did as part of the life+health insurance package provided by $company. But it was the normal blood work, blood pressure, eyes, hearing, lungs, heart, etc. kind of thing; nothing like the Elitra shebango.
kube-system 7y ago
I would have expected the opposite from a country where everyone could get one for free. Or maybe here in the US it is more common because healthy people want to get something for the exorbitant amount of money they spend on insurance.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

raihansaputra 7y ago

I do expect your level of tests/diagnostics for the price mentioned. And the value of finding things to be not concerned about is close to priceless I think. You should try 3d printing one of your own organs just for novelty!

CapriciousCptl 7y ago

Doctor here. You didn't have a false positive-- of course you feel better off. But, you're not physically better off because nothing came back as positive or treatable. Some will start in your shoes, but be unlucky and have a false positive. They would be mentally and physically worse off as potentially inconclusive tests followed by potentially unnecessary procedures resulted in, say, removing one of your kidneys. Yes, that will only happen very rarely and yes I've seen it happen. There can be kind of a two prong "test" to determine if screening is harmful. Physically, is it a good idea? Answer is probably no. We're not in a scarcity situation really where the "prestige" demographic isn't getting recommended to get appropriate tests based on their risk factors (on the other hand, some of our poorest aren't getting them but that's not an issue solved here). The other side is mentally. Again, I'd argue that people with a clean unnecessary screening got out lucky. They'd be mentally much worse off had something come back positive. Bizarrely, there's new data suggesting that even fixing known problems, like coronary artery blockages doesn't improve mortality in a lot of situations you'd think it would. That suggests that we're doing too much screening in that case (I mean, if the treatment is worse than the disease... why screen?), not too little. As another example there is a well-known vascular surgery group going to churches under the pretense of "screening" for leg atherosclerosis, then performing high-margin, high-turnover, and unnecessary procedures on the very high "induced" false-positives. I also find it utterly bizarre that screening would include lung capacity testing. In an otherwise healthy adult who can say, climb a flight of stairs or something of the sort without getting shortness-of-breath, that test is completely meaningless and expensive from a "disease" perspective. On the other hand, it does give you a number to compare to your peer group, kind of like resting heart rate. On the other hand, resting heart rate is free, can be done yourself, and literally takes 15 seconds to measure. In the end, I'm not really against having these sort of "prestige" medical services available. Particularly because more choice is generally good-- and it's your body, you should do what you want with it (within reasonable bounds). But, everyone should educate themselves because on balance, I doubt people end up up feeling or being better off considering the ones who will have false positives.

enchiridion 7y ago
These type of arguments never sit right with me. It's my body, I'd like to know as much about it as possible. It's good to be aware of the risk, but at the end of the day it's my decision to take that risk on. One reason to screen more is that it provides incentive for better treatments. How many people would be researching new coronary artery treatments if we just started ignoring the disease?

jka 7y ago

Although there's a privacy policy published on their website, it sounds like there is a different consent-based policy which covers the detailed healthcare data they collect during testing. Are you able to share any of the privacy policy or assurances they provide regarding your medical data?

petercooper 7y ago
Unfortunately not. For better or worse, it didn't, and doesn't, concern me. That said, I don't recall there being any particular assurances about this matter during the process.