Hacker News Reader

Comment by laurencerowe | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Anecdotally, 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.

Do 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.

C4a, iirc, followed up by some specific tests for mycotoxins in urine.

And yeah, it can be really tricky to find the mold itself.

I 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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com