5 ms·
According to the study cited, they concede that annual checkups result in more diagnosis, but not in a decrease in morbidity. What you consider worthwhile, or w
by mbostleman 3y ago
According to the study cited, they concede that annual checkups result in more diagnosis, but not in a decrease in morbidity. What you consider worthwhile, or worthless, is up to you I guess.
- massysett 3y agoSo to take this to an extreme, if the cohort that got checkups lived a healthy life until age 80, and the no-checkup cohort lived with diabetes and dialysis until 80, this study would say “checkups lead to no decrease in morbidity.” More relevant for the insurer (which might help explain why an insurer is urging checkups) living until 80 with diabetes and on dialysis is much more expensive than living healthily until 80.
- apsec112 3y agoMorbidity is not mortality, it means "suffering from disease". The dictionary definition is "the condition of suffering from a disease or medical condition". So being on dialysis would not be "no decrease in morbidity", no.
- 8note 3y agoWouldn't the checkup crowd be on dialysis from age 60-80 while the no checkup crowd from 75-80?
- op00to 3y agoWhat about relative health while you’re still alive?
- thescriptkiddie 3y agoIsn't that a tautology? Of course knowing you have a disease doesn't prevent you from having the disease. The point is that knowing you have a disease allows you to treat the disease, which one would hope would reduce your chances of dying or becoming disabled.
- pessimizer 3y ago> one would hope would reduce your chances of dying or becoming disabled. The point of the comment you're replying to is to explain that didn't happen.
- qgin 3y agoMaybe I'm missing something, but is this basically saying treating disease doesn't improve outcomes?