.
Feedback

Are Annual Exams Really Necessary?

Annual physical exams are something are society has come to depend upon. But are they really doing what they are supposed to?

I hear it at least every week, if not more.  “My doctor gave me a clean bill of health.”  OK.  So maybe the annual battery of tests and exams didn’t reveal any serious underlying diseases, but that hardly equates to being healthy.  Unfortunately, we’ve become so accustomed to physical exams, even the insurance companies consider them “preventive care.”  The chief cited rationale is that the annual offers a regular opportunity to address risk factors and health or life concerns.  There may be some truth to this, but both insurance companies and doctors could be doing so much more to provide preventive care for patients.

“There’s little evidence that a routine physical exam and a standard 20-30 item chemical panel improve outcomes,” said Allan Goroll, MACP, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and practicing general internist.  In 1979, a Canadian government task force officially recommended giving up the standard head-to-toe annual physical based on studies showing it to be “nonspecific,” “inefficient” and “potentially harmful,” replacing it instead with a small number of periodic screening tests, which depend in part on a patient’s risk factors for illness.  Yet, doctors and patients both continue to be dependent on “screening tests” that are thought to rack up an unnecessary cost of $325 million annually.

Instead of strictly focusing on “disease prevention”, our model of healthcare needs to move in the direction of teaching people how to be healthy.  It’s great if your test results are “normal”, but what changes can you be making to truly improve your health?  As doctors, we need to make it a point to not give people a false sense of security by sticking to the current standards of the annual physical exam.  This only reinforces bad habits, and most likely makes people more prone to chronic disease in the long-run.  As more and more doctors begin to move away from testing and towards individualized lifestyle counseling, patients will come to expect this with their annual exams, hopefully changing the standards altogether.

But that’s not what happens in many primary care practices, Dr. Prochazka and fellow researchers found in a 2005 survey published in Archives of Internal Medicine. Nearly half of the physician respondents, despite evidence to the contrary, still believed in annual mammography, lipid panels, blood glucose levels, CBCs and urinalysis.

“In general, there’s a bit of a disconnect,” he said. “Many patients wish for tests and think that’s what a physical actually means. And many physicians think that the traditional annual is necessary and of proven value.”

Ateev Mehrotra, an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, has estimated that unneeded blood tests during physical exams alone cost $325 million annually.  And the over-screening for some occurs in a country where 50 million people are uninsured and receive little medical attention. More than half of uninsured adults in the United States did not see a doctor in 2010. Fifty percent of Americans are not up to date with the few screening tests that are recommended — like a colonoscopy once every 10 years for those over 50 — because of high costs, said Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund.

Intensive screening can prove useless for a number of reasons, experts say: Tests can have high rates of “false positives,” signaling that there may be disease, when further tests and procedures reveal none. Likewise, they can screen for conditions where early detection does not alter the course of the disease, either because the body might heal itself or because there are no effective remedies. In either case they can lead to aggressive procedures to clarify the diagnosis or provide treatment, which themselves can be harmful.

Ultimately, I think broader policy changes will need to be made to allow doctors the freedom to spend more time with their patients, especially since most insurance companies determine the definition of “preventive” services.  But if doctors can start emphasizing that “healthy” involves far more than just normal blood results, I expect that great progress will be made in our health care system.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Madison Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
tom burland May 21, 2013 at 09:00 am
Leslie, please note these are not rules being introduced. Madison's leash laws are years old, theRead More new request is to allow dogs off leash in specific areas. To the best of my knowledge dog owners allowing dogs to run free are violating current law. Driving down Copse rd often, i have seem dogs run into the road. I think the responsible thing is to fence in a large portion of the property to allow dogs to be free of leashes, run freely, get great exercise, and frolic with dogs owned by similarly minded and responsible owners who accept the potential risk of an occasional bite or two. I have lived in Madison for 20 years and we have always had a leash law...
Leslie S May 21, 2013 at 08:24 am
People who take their dogs off leashes have got to know that their dogs have earned it by beingRead More obedient and compliant. My dogs have been off leash in Bauer for the past 10 years and have frolicked with many found friends there. In all my years I have NEVER seen a dog run into the private gardens nor have I ever heard of a dog running into the road and being killed. And the idea of NOT allowing your dog to run free there, and the other mornic request to clean up after them is ridiculous. Why not clean up after all the other animals that freely fertalize the area - the skunks, deer, possum, squirrels, birds to name a few. They are more of a threat to the gardens than domesticated dogs with owners will ever be. I think its terrible that this town can't allow dogs and their owners to have a spot where they can freely roam and enjoy nature and each other. My daughter just got back from Europe and was amazed at how we discriminate against pets here verus there. And Tom, my dogs live in an electronic fenced yard as well, and unlike you - I enjoy the occasional visit by other dogs - and so do my dogs. They play. Remember that idea -- PLAY??? We left Faifield county years ago to a gentler kinder Madison. Seems things are changing with rules rules and more rules. Leslie Singer