3 ms·
Annual exams were included in the ACA but as I understand it there is no evidence to show that they improve health outcomes. I had one once in 15 years when it
by laurencerowe 2mo ago
Annual exams were included in the ACA but as I understand it there is no evidence to show that they improve health outcomes. I had one once in 15 years when it was incentivised by my employer (presumably trying to show that we were low risk to reduce the rates they paid?) but otherwise my doctor has never tried to book me for one.
I think I'd prefer the UK system where if you worry something is wrong you can see a doctor free of charge.
- unethical_ban 2mo agoI wonder how accurate that is. As in, these screenings are meant to detect early signs of issues like diabetes, liver problems, cholesterol, blood pressure, and so on. Is the case that many people are healthy and don't need it? That we haven't had a long enough sample time to know how screening in the 30s affects outcomes in the 60s?
- ericd 2mo agoAnecdotally, I've found yearly physicals with full blood workup very helpful in heading off issues before they become much larger issues. For example, a random blood marker pointed at mold exposure. I thought that was strange, I didn't think we had any mold. Then I tore open one of my ceilings, there was a very slow leak in the bathroom above the top of that drywall was covered in mold. I replaced all of that drywall, and that blood marker shot down, and a few others improved drastically, and my energy levels improved. By going regularly, you get to see the trend lines on various things - those other markers had been going in a worrying direction over time.
- waweic 2mo agoDo you happen to recall, which blood marker this was? In my living situation, mold might be an issue, but it seems to be hard to actually test for it.
- ericd 2mo agoC4a, iirc, followed up by some specific tests for mycotoxins in urine. And yeah, it can be really tricky to find the mold itself.