Are general health checkups in the UK common?

[-]

Extension-Stomach-23@reddit

Depends on age, nobody I know who's 18-50 does this, mostly cos we're not likely to have serious health concerns.

[-]

Mop_Jockey@reddit

Good luck getting an appointment when they ask you what the reason is and your reply is "just checking in"

[-]

I'm in the US and we have awful insurance here and everything costs and arm and a leg but its so crazy to me that you cant even go for a checkup! Here if you have insurance or are on govt insurance a checkup is free bc it saves the insurance money to catch stuff early. Like if I had the beginning of a heart issue that can be cured or fixed with meds, it is cheaper to give me the meds then to wait until I collapse and need open heart surgery.

I am sort of surprised the NHS doesnt do that. Do you think it is related to a doctor shortage or why is it? Just because financially it would make sense?

[-]

VisKopen@reddit

Like if I had the beginning of a heart issue that can be cured or fixed with meds, it is cheaper to give me the meds then to wait until I collapse and need open heart surgery.

I'm pretty sure that it would be cheaper for insurers if you were to just drop that.

Having said that general health check ups are shown to not be cost effective or beneficial. This explains why they're not done by the NHS as it is publicly funded and why it's done in the US as it is another opportunity to squeeze money out of people.

[-]

Rich_Pay675@reddit

Say you feel generally unwell. They'll cover the bases.

[-]

naturepeaked@reddit

I get invited to one every year. I think it depends on your age.

[-]

KJJM99@reddit (OP)

That’s what I was thinking. You’d be put on a waiting list for literally months

[-]

savagelysideways101@reddit

I'm on a waiting list that's 16mths long to check to see if I've either stomach ulcers or stomach cancer.

The cancer pathways tends to be quick, it's getting on the pathway that's the problem. GPs as gatekeepers.

[-]

Wadge@reddit

Yeah, I went in to the doctor's recently with some dodgy symptoms, they ran every blood test they could first and with no obvious reasons for the symptoms in the results they put me on the cancer pathway for a neurologist appointment and I was seen within a week and had an MRI another week later. MRI was clear but I was impressed with the efficiency of it all.

[-]

Massaging_Spermaceti@reddit

Same, had throat problems and I was in an MRI machine two weeks later.

itsjustmefortoday@reddit

Yes. My ex partner got a letter about it when he turned 40. I turn 40 next month, but I have a heart condition and have already had all the checks for that this year, and another blood test earlier in the year so won't be wasting NHS time going again.

[-]

KiwiNo2638@reddit

I'm nearly 50, never had one. My doctor flat out told me they don't do them. To get a non urgent appointment, it's 3-4 weeks. Can't even get one with my named doctor in that time.

[-]

No-Jicama-6523@reddit

I just turned 45, been at the same practice since before I turned 40, never been invited. Some practices simply don’t have the capacity.

[-]

HappyRattie@reddit

By the time you're in your late 50's you'll be being bombarded with text from your GP about tests and check ups. Because god forbid they could do them all at the same time, in one visit.

Literally same thing, it's the most infuriating thing ever. I got a sore throat this summer that felt like a lump in my throat for over a month. Decided to contact the doctor who said likely hayfeaver although I've never suffered. Persisted still with antihistamines so went back, they said maybe at the back end of tonsilitis (after 2 months??) told me to come back if it persists. After I told him it had been going on since August he changed to possible acid reflux and prescribed my Gaviscon, which again didn't change anything.

She says they have to pay. So she's talking about private healthcare then. Which also means no struggles getting an appointment as another commenter mentioned. Private healthcare is usually phone or app book an appointment for next day.

No it's not common unless you have private healthcare or are wealthy. I got it for the first time in my 30s through work and it's the first time I've ever had a general health check in my life. I get one yearly, as do the 1500 people or wte in my work in my city and way more in our London branch. But then it's way more than just a general check. They do a full blood, urine & stool check for everything from vitamin levels to cholesterol to cancer, ecg, bp check, eye and ear check etc. I've seen a few people now get diagnosed very early on for bowel cancer because of these yearly tests that has probably saved their lives. There will be other work places like mine that give out the same thing and I think to pay for it individually is around £300ish because I have the option of paying for my partner and it's around that. But realistically that's also probably because its part of some mass deal for thousands of employees as individually that would probably cost way more. Only really wealthy people likely send their children for a paid health check once or twice a year that's just a few simple checks and a bp check. It's absolutely not the norm at all.

Got to get past the receptionist now.. I rang up last year because I was having mental health problems/stress and they said "sorry we can't help you unless it's an emergency". The rest of the conversation went like this "what does that mean?" "are you feeling suicidal or are a danger to yourself or anything else?"

Since when are receptionists trained doctors?

[-]

BritishBlitz87@reddit

"This conversation is making me consider it and if I don't get an appointment soon I may well be a danger to GP receptionists in my local area"

[-]

StardustOasis@reddit

Mine was the opposite way around when I called earlier this year.

"Why are you calling"

"I want to discuss my mental health"

"Are you currently a danger to yourself"

"I honestly don't know"

"We don't have any appointments today".

Luckily I got an appointment the day after, but still.

[-]

Creepy-Bandicoot-866@reddit

They’re not (I worked as a GP receptionist in the past), but there is usually a crib sheet you have to work through. If the patient is at risk of self harm, at the practice I worked at, we could put them on a list for a call back from the duty doctor that day.

Or some situations we could book them in at the urgent care clinic.

Or sometimes a nurse was a better person to deal with the issue.

If you failed to ask appropriate questions and booked the person the wrong kind of appointment it would be a waste of everyone’s time.

[-]

SpectrumPalette@reddit

This practice I've been registered at since I was a baby and it's where my GP is.

Haven't seen or spoken to them in years and when I do need an appointment I'm happy to see whoever is available.

[-]

AussieHxC@reddit

Ah you want the physio for your headaches? Or maybe the physician associate for your long COVID?

[-]

SpectrumPalette@reddit

Never had COVID, and when I last spoke to the doctor I need mental health support for depression.

I have since seen a therapist and things have been better.

[-]

Mr-_-Steve@reddit

Definitely a valid response, too many people get hung on the fact that a "receptionist" shouldn't ask questions.. They are gate keepers and although can feel an inconvenience for the people who need them, they are saving an already overstretched GP team from an armada of people who only seem to want visit the drs for someone to talk to...

I phoned a few years ago as had an uncomfortable ache in my chest, being a bloke i just shrugged it off and after a week thought id phone to book a future appointment, after a few questions by receptionist I was talked into seeing a Dr immediately so glad she asked me the questions.

obviously you do get the cases of receptionists with power syndrome who will purposefully make it difficult for people just because they feel they are not being respected or validated but luckily in my experience they are few and far between.

[-]

Theal12@reddit

I had a nasty fall with shoulder pain, GP receptionist sent me to 111, who connected me to a nurse, who connected me to a PT nurse, who told me ‘call your GP back and say you need to see PT at the first available moment. If she pushes back tell her blood is squirting out of your eyes. Bloody receptionists!’

[-]

Delicious-Cut-7911@reddit

I was in the depths of valium withdrawals and my Doctor slammed the phone down and told me to go to A & E . So I went to seek help at A & E and they offered me a valium and told me to go see my GP. I am now more informed over benzodiazepine drugs and know that Doctors have no knowledge about taking people safely off these drugs or what the withdrawals are like for some people. I was in crises at that time , but eventually we contacted the mental health team. They had no clue either. Noone could help me and I was in a hospital for a few weeks until the crises passed. I had to join a support group who helped me get through all the pain and stress and I was taught coping skills to know how to deal with stress and panic etc.

[-]

hitiv@reddit

good luck getting an appointment. that should be your full sentence

[-]

Mr-_-Steve@reddit

Its easy to just phone up and get booked in for your bloods checked and blood pressure read.

Agreeable_Guard_7229@reddit

If you’re a member of BUPA or any other private healthcare plan, you’d know there are numerous private hospitals outside of London. I’m in the midlands and there are 4 private hospitals within a 10 mile radius of my house (not Birmingham either)

[-]

Thematrixiscalling@reddit

Again, it’s a post code lottery. My kids have several health issues and I’ve gone private for some appointments; the latest one I was told was a 3 month waiting list as a lot of people are self funding due to nhs waiting lists, pushing the private wait times up. They also blamed Covid for longer wait times.

[-]

kwnofprocrastination@reddit

A lot of private services now are offered via the NHS Right to Choose thing too which I assume affects the private waiting list too

[-]

heliskinki@reddit

Try. It's easy enough - you might wait a month or so, but if you are doing it once a year, and plan ahead (after all, it's a check up, not an emergency) you can get an appointment NP.

I book in for a check up once a year.

[-]

Cervical screening is evidence-based and proven to save lives. Random blood tests on healthy people in case you pick up an abnormality is not. With every medical intervention it’s all about whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

[-]

KeepMyselfAwake@reddit

A family member has just been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer that's in a lot of places including their lungs; they'd been going to the doctors on and off for about a year as they couldn't shake a cough and just kept getting given antibiotics. I think they've had it spreading for nearly 10 years since they had a mole removed as they said the cells were the same. They're over 60, and it's just not been caught. It's beggars belief that there were no routine tests.

[-]

CiderDrinker2@reddit

It isn't really a national health service.

It is a national injury and illness service.

My own theory is that the NHS was created on the back of people's WW2 experience of military doctors. The mentality is that you don't go to 'sick parade' unless yoi are bleeding or unable to carry a rifle, and the NHS is there to 'patch you up' so you can go back to the front. It is all reactive, like a field hospital.

[-]

cricklecoux@reddit

I always say that the NHS is brilliant for emergency care, but absolutely terrible for routine and preventative care. They just don’t think it is worth investing the time and money.

[-]

aintbrokeDL@reddit

If I were in power I'd scrap the NHS other than for emergencies and make all care for under 18s and pregnant women free. Everything else can be insurance based with huge discounts for social cases where needed.

[-]

Shaper_pmp@reddit

They just don’t think it is worth investing the time and money.

Strong "why don't beggars pay more into their pensions? Are they stupid?" energy in this comment.

[-]

jonadryan2020@reddit

Why?? Is it not true that the NHS isnt investing time and money on preventative care?

[-]

Shaper_pmp@reddit

If course it is true.

And it's also true that tramps should put more money into a pension for when they get old, and yet inexplicably they don't, instead choosing to shortsightedly spend it on food and warm clothing.

I wonder why that might be?

[-]

jonadryan2020@reddit

Food and warm clothing are necessary for immediate survival and basic dignity. A National health care system is more complex than what your point is badly illustrating. Countries budgeting is very different to individuals budgeting.

[-]

Shaper_pmp@reddit

necessary for immediate survival

Right. My point was that the NHS is so unfunded it often has trouble even maintaining basic services at an acceptable level, so they're simply isn't a lot of money to invest for the future in things that won't pay off for decades.

https://doctap.co.uk/blood-test/health-check-screening/

This seems in the ballpark of £100. Factor in that general costs are higher here than in Spain/Greece, and that we do targeted screening for at-risk groups, and it's not different at all

[-]

Stamagar@reddit

With 100€ in a country where minimum wage is 968€. I think it's fair to say that most people can't afford these "annual check-ups"

[-]

I’m fucked basically, and it’s shit considering how much I’ve paid in taxes to get zero healthcare.

[-]

klausness@reddit

But preventative care (such as regular checkups) saves money in the long run. It really is short-sighted. Look at insurance companies in the US. They are notoriously stingy, often doing their best to deny perfectly reasonable claims. But they will pay for preventative care that the NHS wouldn’t cover. Presumably this is because their actuaries have figured out that it saves them money on future claims.

[-]

minecraftmedic@reddit

It's both. General health checks don't reduce mortality or morbidity, so are just a big expensive waste of time. That's why we do targeted screening programmes like breast, colon, cervix .etc.

[-]

groovysalamander@reddit

Basic blood sample checks on risks for diabetes, cholesterol values etc can be very useful from a prevention point of view. It will depend on whether people are willing to make life style changes though.

[-]

Lingonberry_Obvious@reddit

I wouldn’t classify waiting in the emergency with a broken limb for 7 hours as “brilliant”.

I think lots of British people have not lived outside the country and have no idea what a properly functioning health care system looks like.

[-]

Codeworks@reddit

I wouldn't even say it's brilliant for that. Maybe once upon a time.

[-]

ace_master@reddit

Can’t blame people for thinking it’s not worth investing time and money into the NHS itself

[-]

RealRhialto@reddit

In the U.K. it’s known that this sort of screening is not cost-effective and does more harm than good.

It’s possible that in Greece the cost of providing screening and the resulting extra tests and unnecessary treatment is much lower, and the psychological aspects of false positive testing are valued less, but there are good clinical and scientific reasons why this isn’t done in the U.K.

So what happens if cost effectiveness is no one’s priority?

Let’s say we have a fantastically expensive treatment - guaranteed to give anyone a day of extra life, and it costs the entirety of the GNP of the country. If you don’t care about cost effectiveness your view should be we should use this treatment for the first person who comes along who we expect to die in the next 24 hours.

Then suddenly we can’t afford to treat anyone else, for anything. Or have schools, or and army, or buy food.

If your view is that’s too expensive then you do care about cost effectiveness, we just have different thresholds of what’s acceptable, and what opportunity costs we are willing to forego.

Yearly monograms generate more false positives than 3 yearly ones, with no survival benefit - there’s better things to do with that money.

Colonoscopies kill people - depending on the skill of a colonoscopist there’s a good chance of killing more people with the screening test than deaths prevented through cancer (which is why in the U.K. we have an alternative approach to colon cancer screening).

Routine mole checks make no sense in the U.K. - but are eminently sensible where lots of pale people live in the sun eg Australia.

I prefer to be driven by evidence than anecdote, and thought rather than feeling.

[-]

heretoday88@reddit

Sorry for your loss. Routine bowel / colon screening (FIT test) is offered to people over 54 on the NHS?

[-]

llamafarma73@reddit

If you're so into facts, then explain your comment "colonoscopies kill people" Per the NHS website, specifically the page where it lists the risks of the procedure, it refers to and links to the latest national audit of colonoscopies carried out, which studied over 22,000 colonoscopies performed in the UK. None caused death. None, il, nada, zip. So you are spreading a falsehood to fit your agenda. Who is relying on anecdotes now? Fear-mongering does nobody any favours.

As for the alternate screening, yes I'm aware of it. But that's still screening, so do you not believe in that? And besides, for my Dad, he wasn't offered the alternative either because he was 4 years too old to qualify under the rules.

We found out later that you can still ask for the screening if you're over 74, so its not for safety reasons they stop routinely inviting people to do it at that age. But no-one told him he could request it, he was just told screening stopped at 74 and he accepted what he was told. Just like the NHS wanted him to.

You can call that an anecdote if you like, whatever makes you happy. But it's a stone hard fact that if they had continued to offer him screening, that is known to be effective, he might be alive today. But the NHS said, presumably because it can't afford to say otherwise, you're too old for us to care about now, you've had your go, so no invitation to screening for you.

I don't call it an anecdote, I call it a tragedy.

[-]

RealRhialto@reddit

Looks like you’re right. Mortality after colonoscopy is apparently much lower than it used to be albeit with a ~1/1000 rate of hospitalisation for significant adverse events, so that’s better than it was. That doesn’t change the general principle though. To quote Muir Gray, previous chair of the U.K. National Screening Committee

“All screening programmes do harm; some do good as well, and, of these, some do more good than harm at reasonable cost”

https://www.bmj.com/content/336/7642/480

Where did I say “I don’t believe in screening”? There are worthwhile screening programmes, just most health screening is not nearly as beneficial as the general public thinks it is. Cervical screening and colorectal cancer screening as currently practiced in the U.K. are a good thing and probably of net benefit.

I too have a parent who died of a cancer which in retrospect could have been detected earlier. The difference is I know the screening programme which would have detected it would do net harm, so I’m not calling for that programme to be implemented.

Of course it all depends how these visits are managed.

But this should be an evidence-based question and not just based on vibes. There's also the medical question and the economic question.

So, 1) are general health checks associated with improved health outcomes?

And 2) is it cost-effective to provide general health checks to everyone?

If there's any strong evidence for (1) then fair enough. But wouldn't you expect vastly different rates of disease and outcomes between countries with routine health checks and those without?

[-]

kaitco@reddit

It would take me some time to come up with the data, so all I can instantly offer are some anecdotals.

One of the main reasons that the wealthy live longer than those who are poorer is medical accessibility. Preventative care includes yearly screenings for cancers. My mother recently had to undergo a Whipple procedure that involves the removal of some digestive organs as well as part of the pancreas. She noticed something abnormal in her digestion and, at her age, colonoscopy was part of the annual checkup. The colonoscopy results did find anything particularly peculiar, so an endoscopy was performed and found multiple tumors. The tumors were benign at that time, but were still in a volatile state and causing her digestive issues. As discussed multiple times with her surgeon, it is far easier to prevent a cancer than treat one, which led to her Whipple procedure, and a much better quality of life. Yes, she could have “lived with” her digestive issues, and at the time of the endoscopy two years ago, the present tumors were still benign, but it is the annual checkup that caught them while they were still benign. Most instances of full Whipple surgeries occur for patients who either ignored symptoms or could not get the colonoscopy or endoscopy needed earlier, and are now trying to treat full-on colorectal cancer.

There is a ton of data to support the high benefits of yearly preventative care, which is why insurers insist on annual checkups because it is far more cost-effective for them to pay for preventative treatments than long-term cancer or other malady treatments.

As for your Point #2, however, I’ll return to my original statement about why the wealthy generally live better. While the benefits far outweigh the costs of treating ailments versus preventing them, there is an up front cost, and that cost does appear to be on the of the reasons the NHS is focused more on emergency and treatment versus overall preventative care. I can argue that the focus on preventative could has the potential save billions long-term, it is those upfront costs set against the potential savings that make the case extremely difficult.

Are annual checkups for an entire nation cost-effective? On the surface and in the short-term, it would seem not, but having an ultimately healthier populace and catching issues earlier will always be the more cost-effective option.

[-]

whatinthenameofholyf@reddit

If the rate of undiagnosed serious illness is low (and it really is low if you're in your 30s) then a test has to have a very low false positive rate to avoid prompting lots of extra spurious investigations, which themselves are not always completely safe. E.g. A slightly elevated level of something in the blood leads to an x-ray which finds nothing but exposes you to ionising radiation.

[-]

LAUKThrowAway11@reddit

Because finding out you have an illness then getting absolutely no help whatsoever because the whole system is fucked, is worse than just being blissfully unaware.. maybe?

[-]

Chris-Climber@reddit

Do you honestly believe preventative health screening does “more harm than good” (as opposed to just being something the NHS can’t afford)?

That’s like someone’s parent saying “no dear, eating fresh salmon does more harm than good” because they can only afford fish fingers.

[-]

minecraftmedic@reddit

We do preventative health screening for certain conditions where it is shown to reduce mortality and morbidity and is cost efficient.

General health checkups for people without symptoms have been shown not to reduce mortality or morbidity in multiple high quality studies. It's counterintuitive, but that's what the evidence shows.

E.g. doing chest CTs on everyone to try and find lung cancer early would be expensive. We would find tons of lung nodules, but only a tiny proportion of them would be cancer. Lots of people would get unnecessary follow up scans or surgery. Instead we look at the groups that are most likely to have lung cancer (smokers / ex-smokers above a certain age) and scan just that small group instead.

[-]

RealRhialto@reddit

No, I know that most health screening does more harm than good.

There are a handful of conditions and tests where the benefits probably outweigh the harms, and those tests are offered in the U.K.

Some of the U.K. screening programmes are probably not as beneficial as was thought, but it’s really difficult to stop offering a national programme once it started, especially as people who think they’ve benefited from it will object.

There are a handful of programmes not implemented yet which may be beneficial - they are actively considered by the NSC and where appropriate research is commissioned.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-national-screening-committee

[-]

There really isn't any nuance being missed here, literally in the comment you're replying to is a fairly comprehensive set of reports on the relative costs of screenings vs outcome benefits and recommendations on what screenings should and shouldn't be offered, which seems pretty darn nuanced to me.

[-]

No_Durian90@reddit

Honestly, the hesitancy about withdrawing something that’s already been around for a while extends beyond just preventative screening programs.

A few years back we ran the PARAMEDIC-2 trial, to work out if administering adrenaline during cardiac arrest was actually beneficial. Its role in resuscitation had never really been actually tested experimentally, and was almost entirely based on what doctors thought adrenaline should do when used in this manner. The problem was that to actually trial it meant that some people, going through cardiac arrest, would need to not be offered adrenaline during their resuscitation. Imagine the issue of trying to get approval to take that away! The Daily Mail would have never stopped talking about ambulance crews murdering people to save pennies!

For what it’s worth, the findings of the study suggest that giving adrenaline to cardiac arrest patients doesn’t increase the number who survive to hospital discharge by even 1%, but it almost doubles the risk of severe brain damage for those who survive their cardiac arrest.

[-]

libdemparamilitarywi@reddit

It's counterintuitive but yes, many experts think that preventative screening causes more harm than good. The main problem is overdiagnosis, patients being put through unnecessary harmful treatments for conditions that wouldn't actually have caused any issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/jan/03/patients-truth-health-screening-harm-good

[-]

whatinthenameofholyf@reddit

In addition, it's worth noting that we do have national screening programs for breast, bowel and a few other cancers where the data shows the benefits outweigh the harms.

[-]

BigGreenMeeples@reddit

But the data could be wrong or out of date about other conditions couldn't it? Studies generally use a p value of .05 so 1 in 20 chance of results due to error

[-]

DoireBeoir@reddit

No, it's because the healthcare services then get even more clogged up with people worried about "abnormal" results that are nothing to worry about.

I have a friend who has to waste 15mins on someone who had a shaving rash.

The general public can be absolutely moronic, this is capitalised on in other countries like the US where the system is setup to make as much money as possible therefore regular checks and making a big deal of minor issues is the intent

[-]

TedBob99@reddit

Surely, preventive is more cost effective than reactive, addressing health issues when it's too late.

[-]

RealRhialto@reddit

You’d think so wouldn’t you. I fortunate the consequences of screening are far from intuitive.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-national-screening-committee

There is of course far more to preventative healthcare than screening. Weight loss and exercise deliver (on a population basis) much better results than screening.

[-]

TedBob99@reddit

Sorry, I am not going to trust the UK government on this. They have a vested interest in showing that their reactive strategy makes sense.

I understand that screening can give some false positives but people who can afford it get at least a yearly checkup. I do through my work benefits.

[-]

No_Durian90@reddit

People who can afford it are also typically not subject to many of the same lifestyle factors as the wider population, and would typically turn up fewer false or irrelevant positives.

[-]

RealRhialto@reddit

That group is formed of independent doctors, scientists, other experts, and patients. They advise government- which may or may not implement their suggestions but often does

Anyway it turned out not to be pcos because my blood tests came back normal and I don’t fit the stereotypical symptoms of it at all but it’s been 5 years since the symptoms started and I still have no idea what’s wrong with me. I suffer from heavy periods and constant pelvic pain that has now gotten worse and is causing me issues with my bladder. The NHS has only just referred me to a urologist. It’s just unbelievable.

[-]

lurkerjade@reddit

That is abysmal, I’m sorry. I hate to talk negatively about the NHS as I have worked in the NHS previously and know how much the staff struggle, but it’s just not acceptable at this point.

[-]

Away-Historian-2454@reddit

what really gets me is the GPs don’t even seem to be aware of the long-term health consequences of these health conditions that they deem to be “less serious” such as celiacs disease and pcos. When you brought up the cancer risk for example, would it have hurt them to educate you on lifestyle changes you could make to prevent those issues? Even if that education just consists of giving patients a detailed booklet it would be better than what we currently have. I understand the NHS is chronically underfunded and maybe that’s why they didn’t want to prescribe me anything (although because of the pregnancy comments I suspect there’s some sexism at play), but you’d think they’d at least try to inform parents on how to manage their conditions? Instead they just send you on your merry way.

I feel like they look at us as if we’re being hypochondriacs if we express concern about the long term effects of our symptoms on our health. When there was the chance that I had pcos, I wasn’t being unreasonable when I was concerned about the impact it would have on my blood sugar, insulin, weight and cardiovascular health in the future, yet I was just brushed off and told to come back if I wanted to get pregnant. Something needs to change.

[-]

Read the UKs cancer survival rates.

Now remember thar each victim is a whole person with hopes and dreams and stuff.

I'm sorry you overreacted to your checkup.

[-]

I usually use the US and Japan as benchmarks.

[-]

legrenabeach@reddit

Yes. Absolutely. How many people are going to have so many false positives vs how many people this will help to catch bad things at an early stage?

It helped me catch NAFLD early, at the stage where a change in my diet brought my numbers right down, not eliminated but further damage is slowed down by a lot (depending how good i am at sticking to my diet, which is not easy!). Had I not ever done these tests I would be eating myself to an early grave (and no I am not "fat" and I don't binge eat takeaways etc, although I didn't use to follow too healthy a diet either). And by the way, I did have a cancer marker elevated, which to a layperson or even a GP not too well versed in reading such markers would sound alarms, but it turns out it was exactly the marker that, in combination with certain liver enzymes in certain ranges, all together means NAFLD.

I recently switched doctors to a surgery much closer to my address. They did the onboarding checks and suddenly I’m on medication for one condition and being monitored for other health conditions. I’ve had more blood taken in the last few weeks than the rest of my life.

My old dr wouldn’t have done this (I had one health check when I turned 40) so I do think it’s a bit of a lottery.

[-]

No_Durian90@reddit

I’m going to take a guess that one of your new medications is either a statin or a hypertension medication, as it’s very commonly one that patients get put on following a new patient medical.

Clinical justifications aside, if you’re on either of these drugs it’s because the surgery gets a QOF payment for putting you on it, while your old surgery may have had no reason to have done the relevant tests prior to you leaving them.

[-]

minecraftmedic@reddit

So here's my doctor taken on this.

In the UK we're basically trying to provide the best healthcare we can with the least amount of money.

Preventative health checks for the entire population would be extremely expensive. That's ok though because a lot of other healthcare things are expensive too. E.g. The NHS just approved Haemgenix for treating haemophilia at a cost of around £2million per patient.

So as a health service we don't mind spending lots of money as long as we can show that it's money well spent. I.e. improves lifespan or quality of life. We even have an agency NICE which evaluates treatments to see if they're worth spending money on.

This is where general health checks fall down. There have been multiple high quality studies and meta analyses over the years that show general health checks don't improve mortality or morbidity. E.g. https://www.cochrane.org/CD009009/EPOC_general-health-checks-reducing-illness-and-mortality

I know that's not what you'd expect, but that's what the evidence says. General health checks on patients with no symptoms are largely just a big expensive waste of time.

Instead we have targeted screening programmes to try and find certain diseases in patients with high risk. E.g. breast cancer screening, colon cancer, cervical cancer, diabetic eye, fetal blood, AAA. I think there are at least 10 of these programmes. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/population-screening-programmes-document-collection

[-]

uktravelthrowaway123@reddit

Is there any evidence that getting check ups like these is helpful though? Over screening for cancer is actually a problem in the sense that very few people truly benefit from cancer screening and often makes no difference compared to just treating symptomatic cancers. I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar for check ups like these (no offence)

[-]

aredditusername69@reddit

My uncle was a palliative care nurse for 40 years in the NHS and moans about this all time. He hates how little it's focused on prevention.

[-]

Shaper_pmp@reddit

I go to Greece (where I was born) every summer, and get a complete set of blood tests there for about 100 euros

If you pay for private healthcare you'll get annual checkups in the UK, too.

[-]

AhhGingerKids2@reddit

In all fairness you can definitely get basic blood work done privately for £100 or less. But, completely agree with you they just can’t get ahead enough to focus on prevention.

[-]

Tsarinya@reddit

That’s a big issue with the NHS, they are there in emergencies but these emergencies can often be prevented with better care. But prevention doesn’t seem to be in their vocabulary sadly.

[-]

blind_disparity@reddit

I guess your friend is American?

It's not actually beneficial for people to have check ups for no reason. Nearly all medical treatment carries some amount of risk, If you check every person in the country, you will get many false positive results, and you will find things that could be dangerous but quite possibly wouldn't have been.

The small number of things where the likelihood and danger of them occurring, ARE checked for. Breast cancer, prostate checks, etc. But limited to the age and gender at highest risk.

For example, a scan can find tumours. Most tumours are benign, and some are cancerous. The safest way to respond to a possibly cancerous tumour is to surgically remove it, along with a chunk of surrounding flesh- because any cancer cells remaining can still be deadly, and the surgery can cause them to spread. They test it after it's been removed, because testing beforehand carries the same risk of sending cells into the bloodstream to spread to other parts of the body.

But clearly, cutting chunks of flesh out of people's internals is dangerous, especially if it's close to something important, like your heart for instance.

For the unlucky people who do get cancer, they would probably have been better off if they'd been screened. The potential benefits can be measured and calculated for the number of people expected to get cancer. But the much greater number of people who would have been given unnecessary treatment, although that treatment is less dangerous than cancer, across way more people the total harm outweighs the benefit to the actual cancer patients. This also is calculated - we know the statistical chance of harm from the treatment.

There's another factor, which is the cost / benefit calculation. Spending vast amounts of money to get a better result for a relatively small number of people, means less money to spend on more effective treatments. This also is carefully calculated. The method is a bit much to explain here but there's good explanations online.

Hopefully I guessed right about your friend being American. Final word is on how their approach differs.

American medicine, where people have private coverage and care, doesn't need to make calculations on the most beneficial use of money and treatments across the whole population. The rich just get better treatment, and the poor suffer and die.

It's also something which is marketed and takes a sales driven approach. It's good business sense to advertise your premium medical insurance as OFFERING 4 CHECKUPS A YEAR! EVERY POSSIBLE ILLNESS TESTED FOR! because it makes customers feel well looked after, even if it's actually harmful for them. And then it creates many opportunities to find problems and provide lots more medical treatment. Because that's more business!

paulgibbins@reddit

I live in Spain and your workplace is obligated to offer you an annual medical check.

Depending on your job and company, they do various tests. My most recent one included bloods, urine, eyesight, hearing, mobility, blood pressure etc etc.

It's a really good system that helps you spot anything that might become a problem before it does, and would probably save the NHS billions a year with preventative care. I dunno why they don't do it in the UK tbh.

[-]

According_Arm1956@reddit

Experience from screening programmes for individual diseases have shown that the benefits may be smaller than expected and the harms greater.

https://www.cochrane.org/news/featured-review-are-general-health-checks-beneficial

[-]

moatec@reddit

It might be something offered through work if you have private medical cover. I know my partner is entitled to one a year or something with her company.

[-]

milly_nz@reddit

Unless you have a clinical need (i.e. you’re sick/something is wrong) then no, the NHS is not there to MOT your health.

The science shows that “routine” checks do absolutely nothing helpful. Hence the NHS won’t waste money on them. Neither does NZ or Australia. Seems to be a function of nations that rely on private healthcare.

Until you hit 40. Then you get called in every 5 years for a general health check.

Or if you’re a woman, then you get called in every 3 years for a cervical smear. And a mammogram from the age of 50.

[-]

APiousCultist@reddit

I can't imagine the science truly saying that. US does preventative colonoscopies and mamograms way earlier, and the UK doesn't even do preventative prostate exams. Unless we're gonna say that no one ever has non-symptomatic cancers in those areas, they're inevitably going to catch some cancers early before they can metastasize. It may be rare, but people in their 20s and 30s can absolutely die of bowel cancer or breast cancer. Likewise most adult males past their 70s will have some form of prostate cancer, so diagnosing if it's a form that actually needs immediate treatment would extend life.

It's a cost-benefit calculation, not an absolute statement that screening never catches cancers. Unless anyone wants to argue that people under 50 don't get cancer or that serious cancers never lack noticable symptoms, it would be insane to me to act otherwise.

[-]

milly_nz@reddit

What’s a “preventative” prostate cancer exam? There isn’t one. What there is, is warning older men of the warning signs of prostate cancer. And the occasional blood test after the age of 40 yo check PSA levels.

Developing prostate cancer in early adulthood IS so rare that chucking unwarranted “testing” at it doesn’t help.

Tell me you’ve never been involved in medical science, without telling me you’ve never been involved in medical science.

Your lay assumptions are not backed up by the science.

[-]

APiousCultist@reddit

There's not a cancer exam, but a prostate exam or PSA blood test can absolutely find indicators of a problem that further investigation can work out. Or do you think that people with prostatitis just have to live with not knowing if they've got cancer or not because I guess that's just unknowable to medical science or something?

The point isn't that you're necessarily going to have a bulletproof method of detecting cancers, but at the very least a positive result for a test will indicate a need to investigate. A low chance of accurate detection is still better than no detection.

Preventative here meaning "to catch early a problem enough to have the best odds of an intervention working" (because my comment was broad as fuck), whether that's catching pre-cancerous masses or just the early stages of a cancer before it can grow or spread.

What do you think the point of any of those tests or exams is if they're incapable of detecting cancers? My comment was also in no way specific to prostate exams. Please by all means tell the class how no young people get colon cancers way before the NHS would ever look up there without symptoms.

Unless you don't think a colonoscopy can detect cancerous or pre-cancerous masses, I'd really not like to hear your logic on how screening seemingly healthy people couldn't possibly catch some cancer cases early.

[-]

Jedi_Emperor@reddit

Health checks for the over 40s are common. Especially if you are (on paper) healthy.

If someone is say 55 with nothing wrong with them, not even high blood pressure or diabetes, then the odds are there IS something wrong with them and it hasn't been diagnosed yet. So doctors want to find out sooner rather than later and manage the condition before it gets even worse.

[-]

Agreeable_Guard_7229@reddit

Rubbish. Are you saying that being over 55 practically guarantees you have medical issues?

We should absolutely be giving free health checks, but being over 55 does not automatically make you ill. My dad is 73 and outside of a workplace accident when he was younger, has never taken regular medication in his life. He had a very thorough medical check up aged 64 when he wanted to donate a kidney and was declared perfectly fit and healthy.

[-]

Jedi_Emperor@reddit

Are you saying having high blood pressure is something to be ashamed of?

Statistically speaking most people over 50 have at least one long term condition like asthma or diabetes or hypertension. That's not a slur against their character it's just a fact.

[-]

Agreeable_Guard_7229@reddit

Where did I say it was something to be ashamed of? I was just saying being over 50 doesn’t automatically guarantee you have a medical condition.

In most cases, high blood pressure is usually diet or weight related.

[-]

Theal12@reddit

Your dad is not a viable metric for the general population

[-]

FrostyAd9064@reddit

Many people do get an annual general check up but it’s not universal, it’s based on specific needs.

For example, as I’m diagnosed with a serious mental health issue (bipolar disorder), my GP surgery contacts me to ask me to make an appointment for a general check up each year and this includes blood tests that cover all the basics, height and weight, chat with the GP, etc.

This is because someone with a serious MH condition is statistically more likely to not look after their own health as well as the general population.

[-]

nigeltheworm@reddit

Yes, if you have a long term health condition they will want to see you every year at least.

[-]

bunchonumbers123@reddit

My practice nurse asked me if I wanted a check up with the doctor. "Oh, you mean a physical?" "Yeah, why not" "So, what does that entail? "Oh, he'll ask you a few questions...."

He asked me how I was feeling, and took my blood pressure. I'd forgotten about the 'Check up,' completely. But saw on my notes it had been included in my visit that day (My appointment was for other things - but seems I received my checkup as well)

I'm a Brit, but lived in the US for years. In the US can schedule a yearly physical. It's included in your insurance. If a woman, you have a 'Well Woman' check.

The difference from the UK and the US is that the US has a focus on preventative medicine. Catch issues before they progress

[-]

TreatFriendly7477@reddit

Once you hit 40 you will usually get called in for an NHS Health Check.

Initially every 5 years but I'm (47m) getting called in every couple of years as both my parents have / had hereditary diseases that need checking.

[-]

SnoopyLupus@reddit

I’ve got a mate who’s a gp, and he say they’re just hand-waving ooga-booga things they do for Americans because they need to feel they got their money’s worth.

[-]

loranlily@reddit

I’d disagree. I’m a Brit that has lived in the US for over a decade. I’m in my late 30s. My doctor runs a panel of blood tests for A1C/glucose, cholesterol and other things that could have few symptoms but cause problems if left untreated. We also do a general physical and mental health check. I take two prescription medicines that we also review and adjust dosages/renew prescriptions for if needed.

[-]

InformalCommittee493@reddit

Med reviews happen in the NHS every few scripts.

HbA1C/cholesterol monitoring is only done for specific at-risk groups or those presenting with symptoms.

The burden for GPs if they had to review annual blood tests for everyone in the UK would be astronomical.

[-]

MortimerDongle@reddit

HbA1C/cholesterol monitoring is only done for specific at-risk groups or those presenting with symptoms.

For the most part, not enough testing is actually done even when there's a problem, thus no result found. False negatives are an issue due to insufficient testing.

Maybe it's a separate issue but checking things like vitamin and mineral panel, blood pressure, heart function every 5 or so years shouldn't be unusual, particularly if you're over 40.

[-]

Natural-Confusion885@reddit

I work in research, specifically research on NHS care (!!), and don't bother weighing in on these conversations. No one wants a discussion, they just want a moan and to feel validated in the belief that everything is shit.

If you actually want a check up without going to the doctor, go and donate blood - they run a wide range of tests on it to ensure it's safe to give up people and will let you know if anything is wrong.

[-]

ThatHairyGingerGuy@reddit

I donate plasma frequently. They do take some blood for tests, but this is to verify the health of the blood I've given, not me. I don't see any results, let alone get any consultation about them.

[-]

Left_Boysenberry_635@reddit

High risk groups within the population =/= 30 year olds who have both the inclination and £200 to spare on a wellness check to “test for everything

That’s why the taxpayer doesn’t pay for an “annual wellness check” for everyone.

But just a checkup isn't a thing when you are young. You can always call the GP and mention symptoms and they will usually do the basics like blood pressure (which you can do at any pharmacy, as well as diabetes checks). They often run a blood count etc even if you just complain of tiredness. If they invited everyone to a routine checkup every 6 months the NHS would be absolutely more overwhelmed than it already is.

In my neck of the woods I usually get an appointment within a week or two if I want to see someone specifically. I never had an issue.

What you can't do is just turn up and expect to be seen on the day (unless it's something acute and you call in early in the morning - but you have to be quick).

We also have walk in centers and they are usually very good if you need to be seen urgently but it's not so urgent that you need to go to A&E

[-]

BagsOnFire17@reddit

Lol no. I’ve just paid £200 to go private for a body MOT because there’s no way the NHS will see me without symptoms

[-]

OldMasterpiece4534@reddit

I'm from Portugal and moved to the UK in 2012. I remember trying to get a check-up appointment where GPs perform some health checks on you, do blood tests, physical checks, etc and being told by my UK GP that if I was feeling well, there was nothing to worry about. 😐 Never used a UK GP after that. I carried on using my family GP in Portugal (who had followed me since my mum's pregnancy) until she retired in 2021. Nowadays I have used a UK GP and even though she seems to be quite good, it's so much harder to get anything done/checked.

[-]

They will pay a price in later life.

[-]

Theal12@reddit

you can’t walk your way out of cancer

[-]

lalalaladididi@reddit

No but you can take steps(literally) that reduce the risk

[-]

MrAlf0nse@reddit

In private healthcare systems, these general health check ups are essentially sales qualification meetings for drug companies.

What can potentially be prescribed for profit? The Dr is encouraged to investigate what treatments can feasibly be sold

If you have a life long condition, yes, biannual or annual check-ups are common/routine/normal.

And the NHS has lots of campaigns telling people to get checks with the pharmacist once a year once they are over 50. How many people take this up, I don't know. You will also get checked out on a general screen if you start many kinds of meds.

Ideally, the NHS would probably do this for everyone annual as it's cheaper to pick up problems early, but it is starved of funds and staff. But even when I was younger, and the NHS better funded and routine health screening was a thing, getting people to attend appointments like this was impossible, people don't want to go to the doctor's even if they are sick in the UK, especially men, it seems to be a cultural thing.

[-]

OwlGroundbreaking363@reddit

I have my bloodwork done for free at Blue Crest via Vitality each year, and a fitness checkup at Virgin via Vitality each year.

klaus6641@reddit

Check out Neko Health

[-]

SilkySmoothRalph@reddit

Not at all common in the U.K. The over 40 checkup is the first one an adult will generally get. A private one coats from about £100 for a basic checkup with bloods.

Having worked with U.K. GPs, I’ve heard this come up before and their opinion was it was a fair compromise to not do it before the 40 year checkup since most issues are symptomatic, and it would require at least one extra full time clinician per average GP practice.

[-]

OTcake@reddit

Three parts to this

1.In the UK, free NHS Health Check-ups are offered to adults aged 40 to 74 every five years, provided they do not already have certain pre-existing conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, or high blood pressure.

Where you live and how swamped your GP is. More affluent small towns you'll get this if you ask quickly. Big cities and poor areas, they might fob you off.
Do you mind being overly dramatic? If you suddenly "feel" really lethargic and ill and aren't sleeping well etc. They'll probably give you a check up if you harass them enough (at least the first few times... not recommending this just acknowledging that those that complain loudest tend to have luck for low level concerns with GPs... this is not true with specialist services)

[-]

slartybartfast6@reddit

You get some over certain ages, or if you hit certain benchmarks, over 40s mens check they'll do bloods, weight, height etc and check for risk factors for cardiac, diabetes etc

There’s a general health check available between the ages of 40 and 74.

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

Only for those between the ages of 40-74, without any of the following pre-existing health conditions:

heart disease
chronic kidney disease
diabetes
high blood pressure (hypertension)
atrial fibrillation
transient ischaemic attack
inherited high cholesterol (familial hypercholesterolemia)
heart failure
peripheral arterial disease
stroke
currently being prescribed statins to lower cholesterol
previous checks have found that you have a 20% or higher risk of getting cardiovascular disease over the next 10 years

Even then it's not "common", it's every 5 years. More info from the NHS website here

[-]

Nat520@reddit

If you’re over 40 without any known health conditions you should be invited for a health check every 5 years. NHS health check

[-]

idlewildgirl@reddit

Most of my mates got one when they turned 40 but nothing for me.

[-]

LondonCycling@reddit

Not really no.

After 40.you should be invited for an NHS Health Check (England and Wales) but frankly these are so generic that they're not very useful. They'll take your BMI (which you can do yourself in under a minute at home), your blood pressure (which clinicians should really do at most presentations anyway given it is the 'silent killer' and the reading is free and takes less than a minute while you discuss other things), a cholesterol test, and maybe a blood sugar test.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-health-check/

I'm not suggesting cholesterol isn't important, but I'd hardly call it a 'health checkup'.

You basically need to pay for a private health screening, which is maybe around £200 for the moderately comprehensive mark.

[-]

reddogg81@reddit

As an old twat, I got a call from the doctors saying I need to go for a general check up as they normally do it when you are 40

I'd just turned 43 btw so thought there maybe, possibly be a little bit of a back log lol

Tbh I went and I've had more in depth medicals from companies I have worked at.

The nurse said at the end - " If there's anything wrong we'll be in touch but if not you are fine "

Cheers for that, how long am I supposed to wait and assume I'm not dying like 😂

I don't think it would be too hard to set up an automatic messaging system that the nurse uses in her office so if its all clear it would send a text saying alls good when she gets the results. To be fair it's not exactly like it's a rush job (only say that through experience where I've worked for PI (personal incentive) in a steel works where you actually butcher your wrists for an extra pound an hour (timed of course) still passed though because I had no call lol

Sorry went on a tangent haha

[-]

lucylastic89@reddit

in the last 6 months I’ve been asked to go into my GP surgery for a diabetes check (apparently they’re offering it to all people my age in my town)

I’ve also separately been sent to the hospital to do a load of breathing tests to check if I’ve actually got asthma (I’m nearly 35 and had it since birth, was hospitalised as a baby with it). i’ve not been informed of the results of either of these tests. I could ask but does nobody think that it might be worth just sending a quick letter or even text to say everything’s fine (or not, either way)?

[-]

wrighty2009@reddit

Damn, yeah, the bonus "doctors" they use are sometimes less than fucking useless. I had one of the ones from a different surgery (can't remember what they call it, but a cover doctor,) blatantly didn't give a shit about us. I went in to ask for allergy tests following anaphylaxis (or at least what was damn close to it,) she was telling me there's really no point. The waiting list is long, and they probably wouldn't find anything, and I'd be fine, basically. Oh, and to avoid anything that could trigger it (how, when I don't know what triggered it?)

I insisted, turns out I have a rare allergic syndrome meaning I'm allergic to a lot of shit, and my reactions to the same foods are on a scale of non at all, to possible death, and because I've seen said allergist I'm allowed epi-pens to hopefully delay death for long enough to get to a hospital.

And that really long waiting list was shorter than the wait to see the doctor to begin with... it was like a week I waited.

[-]

Codeworks@reddit

Locum

[-]

maddy273@reddit

If you get the nhs app you will be able to see your medical record including results of any tests

[-]

reddogg81@reddit

You're just speaking the truth.

I hate how as a society we're too incapable of doing anything about it.

I've been unionised all my life, first thing I was told by my 'mentor' in a 5 year apprenticeship in engineering..... Join the union

Piss poor communication tbh

Let's put it frankly, it all boils down to corners getting cut everywhere.

When a secretary has the permission to ask and advise patients on the best due course we know it's gone tits up.

Not just the NHS though, I see it everywhere. Worked for global powerhouse company, they are doing the same now, anything to skim off the top (bottom) so the money stays where it should (shouldn't)

[-]

reddogg81@reddit

I feel I should add....

Not a dig against any secretary btw, just adding to the plate of the people left as every single company, government agency is doing at the minute due to not having the foresight of being undercut by overseas companies taking up the work cheap (government funded) then will ramp up the prices once they have it all.

Does anyone have any common sense anymore?

[-]

lucylastic89@reddit

actually went for my flu jab a couple of weeks ago and mentioned it to the nurse that I hadn’t heard anything and she said she couldn’t tell me the results cos she’d locked herself out of the system by accident putting her password in wrong. It’s just so, so shit

[-]

Silly-Recognition-25@reddit

Worth always going back and getting your printed results. I had a high cholesterol reading and my doctor didnt even mention it during our follow-up call- they were too busy trying to tell me about my thyroid hormone results which frankly they weren't qualified to understand. I spotted the high cholesterol when I got the printout a few days later and changed my diet.

[-]

RealRhialto@reddit

You don’t need to pay for a private health screening - because virtually all screening for apparently healthy people does more harm than good.

Consider doing the screening that the NHS offers you, and avoid private screening which is designed to address the “problem” of you having too much money.

You can find all the U.K. relevant advice on screening at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-national-screening-committee

[-]

purpleshoeees@reddit

Can you explain how 'all screening does more harm than good'? Most health conditions would have better outcomes if discovered sooner so being screened for diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure etc can't do any harm. If more of these issues were caught sooner we'd have far less advanced cancer cases and heart attacks.

I feel like saying it does more harm is something the NHS peddles to justify not doing any preventative care.

[-]

soundslogical@reddit

You can see the National Screening Committee's recommendations for each disease/condition on this page.

I'm not saying I agree with these, or even that I've read them all, just that this is where the decisions can be viewed. Here's an example, for prostate cancer:

Screening for prostate cancer is currently not recommended in the UK. This is because:

The Test

The PSA test is not accurate enough to detect prostate cancer that needs treatment. It can falsely find men who do not have prostate cancer. It can also miss some cancers. This means that many men might have to undergo unnecessary and often unpleasant tests and/or unnecessary treatment.

It is still unclear if other tests such as an MRI scan, with or without PSA, are accurate enough. Research is also currently looking at whether a method for predicting prostate cancer risk using a combination of a blood test and other information about a man could be more accurate. But more studies are necessary to confirm the early results.

The Intervention

At present, there is no single treatment that is definitely better for patients with early-stage prostate cancer, as treatments’ effectiveness needs to be weighed up against their side effects.

The screening programme

It is unclear how PSA screening impacts deaths due to prostate cancer.

A PSA-based screening programme could harm men as some of them would be diagnosed with a cancer that would not have caused them problems during their life. This would lead to additional tests and treatments which can also have harmful side effects.

[-]

purpleshoeees@reddit

Thats just one test and I haven't read all the other ones but I personally believe people having to get additional tests for potential false positives isn't as bad as a diagnosis being missed. With bowel cancer for example, there's way too many people in this country who get to stage 4 before it's discovered. I personally know someone only in their 20s who died from bowel cancer and it could have been caught much sooner.

I maybe don't think there should be a general screening for everything but if someone goes to their doctor and says they feel tired and generally rubbish or has ibs symptoms they should screen for things like bowel cancer.

I think people who have lost someone to a late diagnosed cancer would agree that having a false positive and having to get further tests and it turning out to be nothing isn't anywhere near as bad as losing someone to a cancer where it could have been avoided.

[-]

soundslogical@reddit

That would be my initial assumption as well, that it's better to have some false positives than to miss an early diagnosis.

However, I'm open to the possibility that there's a balance to strike. If the screening program is so expensive that it depletes resources for treatment for example, that might not be a good tradeoff. I don't know enough about it to make a judgement.

[-]

purpleshoeees@reddit

[-]

silvestris-235@reddit

I’m astounded at how rarely blood pressure is checked here. I’m from the US and at most appointments for anything, regardless of the nature of it, they will take your BP because it’s so quick and easy and as you said, it’s a silent killer. In my couple years of living in the UK, I think I only had it taken at my first meeting with my GP when I registered. Due to a chronic illness I have, I was advised to make sure to nevertheless get it checked annually. It’s been hard to get this done ‘without a reason’ when calling my local GP. So when I was recently at a hospital for a separate test, I happened to see a machine lying around so I asked them if they’d check my BP. They found a nurse to check it, but instead of writing it on my chart for my records, they wrote it on some scrap paper and just handed it to me directly.

[-]

LondonCycling@reddit

It varies.

My GP checks it any time I go in.

My pharmacy offers it as a free check. I had one done not long ago while I was waiting for them to make up my partner's prescription.

[-]

Ciwan1859@reddit

Where do I book a private health screening?

[-]

LondonCycling@reddit

Just search online for private health check or 'health MOT' as many providers call it. The likes of Bluecrest, Randox, Nuffield, Bupa, etc offer them.

They'll do some measurements in a partner clinic, usually a local pharmacy, and stake some small blood samples which they run tests on. How many biomarkers they test for really depends how much you pay.

At the pricier end you can get things like ECGs, respiratory check, bone health check, etc.

Most come with a GP review of the results but do check to make sure - though if you had a few biomarkers outside of the reference range you could make an appointment with your NHS GP to discuss.

I've Never been offered a 'general health checkup' in my 28 years round the sun

I Shudder to think what a massive waste of NHS resources that would be

The closest I've heard to that is pap smears. Also ig you kind of get them during pregnancy? I Think some of them SE midwife visits don't serve specific purpose other than to check in on how things are going

[-]

InformalCommittee493@reddit

You're better off buying your own automatic BP machine.

Check it every month or so and write down the best of 3 readings. If it's 140/90 or higher, take a week's worth of home readings (best of 3 each day) and make a GP appointment.

Hypertension is generally asymptomatic and an important modifiable risk factor for heart attack/stroke, as well as being a symptom of some illnesses.

RealRhialto@reddit

That’s a waste of money in a developed economy. There are so many other things that money could be spent on more beneficially in an “emerging economy” :-(

[-]

Agreeable_Guard_7229@reddit

Tell that to someone who has been diagnosed with stage 4 terminal cancer after going to the GP for 2 years and being told it was just stomach bugs and there was nothing wrong with them

[-]

Ha, I can't get an appointment for current issues I'm dealing with.

[-]

slightlyvapid_johnny@reddit

Over diagnosis is a thing that happens a lot in the US much to their own detriment. Requesting unnecessary tests can cause harm.

Read up on lead time bias and how diagnosing things like cancer earlier doesn’t make things better.

Preventative medicine in most instances pretty much easy, eat well, exercise, minimise chronic stress and look after mental health, don’t do drugs among other common sense lifestyle habits. Unfortunately, people wouldn’t do it, even if a doctor told them to.

[-]

sayleanenlarge@reddit

They do ones for over 40s. They send you a message to book it.

[-]

dolphininfj@reddit

There are plenty of services available now for general check ups eg blood tests, scans etc etc. I can access them directly from the app that I use to monitor my medical record/ book GP appointments / see test results (Patient Access). These are private healthcare providers and so obviously charge accordingly. I suspect that a significant percentage of the population, who can afford to, pay for these services. My son uses one of these services to get his asthma inhalers because it's easier than waiting for an NHS appointment and taking time off work to attend.

[-]

TheDawiWhisperer@reddit

i had one once, when i moved health insurance providers at work - they arranged for me to go for a checkup

Free at the point of use is very different to being “free”.

But the GP did not once mention obesity or anything about what causes the condition.

This is the NHS, the treat the condition with medication or surgery, but do not identify the underlying cause

And obesity, lack of exercise, too much alcohol and bad food are the cause of many health problems and it is getting worse.

[-]

_MovieClip@reddit

I don't think they're common here. You usually have to have a reason to request appointments. Seems sensible, but there are asymptomatic issues you can find by just doing a few checks once or twice a year. It's pretty normal in my country as well, and I do run them whenever I go back.

I know I have a couple asymptomatic conditions that are not a problem right now, but could be, only because of my regular checkups.

I know GPs are probably too swamped to deal with these kinds of things, but treating people when they feel something is wrong is usually more expensive and time consuming than preventing it from happening or catching it early.

[-]

Festivefire@reddit

This is a common practice in most parts of the world where healthcare is available and afordable. It used to be a common practice in the US when most people could actually afford to go to the doctor's just for a checkup.

I did a yearly checkup up until I was 24 and was no longer on my parent's insurance, because my own health insurance sucks ass, and I can't really afford to do general checkups.

[-]

tallbutshy@reddit

Is your friend American by any chance?

The yearly check-ups over there mostly aren't for patient health, they're for making money.

[-]

spellboundsilk92@reddit

Yearly check ups are normal in a number of European countries too.

[-]

Ambry@reddit

Exactly. Always wondered why Americans said they got their annual check ups like it was normal - someone explained its actually because you kind of need to get checked regularly for insurance purposes so they can see what health risks and underlying conditions you have to calculate premiums and to catch things early so its cheaper for the insurer, and it makes sense.

[-]

armtherabbits@reddit

It's the reason why American cancer victims present do much earlier and have so much better survival rates.

It’s the number one most terrifying thing about the UK health system.

As an American in the UK I am constantly scared I am riddled with cancer and they’ll only catch it as I’m dying.

Lots of people saying there’s no preventative measures here seem to be forgetting cervical screening, mammograms, bowel cancer checks, prostate checks. If your GP doesn’t have a blood pressure machine in the waiting room, a pharmacy will. If you have concerns, your doctor will generally take blood to see what’s wrong.

baechesbebeachin@reddit

Until about 2016, I had the same doctor for about 20 years. I have since moved and there is only 1 doctor at my surgery. So still seeing the same person. I think it just depends where you live.

[-]

Mini-Nurse@reddit

You can have a specific doctor, but its generally less of a ballache to just take however is free first.

[-]

Soggy_Detective_4737@reddit

If you're at a surgery where you pay, then yes, it's absolutely common.

If it is NHS, it used to be that they'd call you in every few years around your birthday once you hit 45-50 for blood pressure, weight check, height, asking how much are you smoking/ drinking, that kind of thing, but talking to my MIL, it seems like they just send you a text asking about your weight now that you reply to. She occasionally gets called in to check on her blood pressure.

ThugginHardInTheTrap@reddit

wtf did I just watch 😂

[-]

exialis@reddit

NHS shutting down while waiting lists rose to five million people. Funding now at record real terms levels and fewer people being treated than pre-Covid.

[-]

chat5251@reddit

The NHS is shit for non emergency care

/thread

[-]

Silver-Appointment77@reddit

Ive only had 1 full health check once in my 55. years. And that was to adopt my grandson, as Social services asked for it.

Otherwise I hust see a doctor one or twice a year for a blood pressure and asthma check.

You'll be lucky to get an appointment just to check your health.

[-]

Robliterator_@reddit

They used to be when I was young. Now trying to grt a doctors appointment is an absolute nightmare.

[-]

JPK12794@reddit

You can get them but they're not common and can be very difficult to book.

[-]

aquaporinz@reddit

DOI: I’m a doctor

There’s no evidence that ‘health checks’ for people that otherwise feel well achieve anything in terms of preventing disease/death. Why this is is up for debate, probably a combination of: 1) ‘The doc said I was fine six months ago so I don’t have to worry about these chest pains’ 2) The people who turn up for the health checks are not the people who actually need them 3) Over intervention causing harm

Particularly interesting when considering blood pressure - there’s endless evidence to show that reducing BP prevents disease but no evidence that randomly testing BP in asymptomatic people results in less cardiovascular disease (but we do it anyway).

There’s certainly times that over investigation is harmful - don’t get me started on ‘whole body MRIs’.

kuklinka@reddit

The NHS does not order screening tests for asymptomatic patients save over 40s general health test and mammograms cervical screening et cetera largely because it can do more harm than good. Many blood tests for example would need to be done over the course of several weeks or months to establish a baseline for that particular pace patient, this is for example blood tests for oestrogen in menopausal women isn’t done in the UK because it wouldn’t provide a reliable result time of day, time of month et cetera.

It is time-consuming hugely costly and can be worrying for the patient when there is no need for it. In some cases it gives the impression that by spotting disease at a certain point you are extending patient life but it’s only because you have put a needle in a certain timeline , and measuring time from that point rather than from a symptom.

Also, you can detect cancer in a patient who will never suffer serious symptoms or who will die from it but that detection will start a concatenation of invasive worrying treatments.

Paediatricians are very much a thing. They treat sick children, though, they don’t do all that very low level handholding they seem to do in the US. We have a system of maternity care, health visitors, baby weighing clinics, and when needed GPs and practice nurses to support new parents. And a lot of public health info pregnant mothers are exposed to around things like safe sleep, weaning etc.

It’s baffling from this side when you see someone has taken their baby to a paediatrician to be ‘given the okay to wean onto solids’ lol. What a waste of clinical time and money. In the UK you wait until 6m and showing the signs of readiness to wean. There’s a lot more autonomy here over health whereas in the states it seems very nanny state, charging patients for stuff they don’t need.

[-]

beethoven_butt@reddit

First of all, I literally just had a baby in the UK and know first hand their maternity and postnatal care, which is very good quality, so there is no need to get defensive. However, as you alluded to, pediatricians are in hospitals, they don’t have offices. Why is it that infant checkups by healthcare workers stop at age 3 and instead the school nurse will do checks to see if a child is developmentally sound? That honestly is not enough and it seems like a lot slips through the cracks.

There’s nothing wrong with “low level hand holding” if it helps identify an issue. My daughter is luckily an EU citizen so we took her to a pediatrician in the EU (where they do have offices) and they spotted something that would be (and thus far has been) completely ignored and unnoticed if I left it to the UK healthcare system. We aren’t the only people I know who go abroad for their children to receive pediatric care.

The idea that a pediatrician is hand-holding only the US is not true. I think it’s more that the UK is not the norm from the rest of the world. I had my first baby in the EU, not the US, where the pediatrician had regular checks for vaccines, development, as well as a doctor specialized in pediatric care who I could reliably call to provide advice.

[-]

Llamasb4Alpacas@reddit

Yes, if you're over 40 you can book with your GP surgery for a free NHS health check, they'll check your bloods, pressure height weight ect. Anything out of the ordinary will get flagged to the doctor to follow you up

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-health-check/

[-]

turgidturbulence@reddit

GPs do not work for the NHS they are small business owners who work for themselves and contract their services into the NHS. They can provide their services (especially concerning patient contact and appointment setting etc) as they see fit. Unless you share a GP practice and an identical diagnosis with someone else within the practice you will have a different patient experience at not only primary care but as you move through the NHS system ( there are 215 trusts in England alone).

[-]

_PetalWhisper_@reddit

You're spot on—regular checkups just for general health aren’t really a “thing” in the UK the way they are in some other countries. The NHS is great for when you have a specific issue, but most people here don’t go for routine checkups unless there’s something clearly off.

It’s partly cultural, but it’s also how the NHS is set up—it prioritizes treatment over routine screenings unless you’re in a higher-risk category or over a certain age. For things like blood pressure, many people just get it checked at the pharmacy. So yeah, waiting things out seems to be more the norm!

[-]

Vconsiderate_MoG@reddit

There's pretty much zero prevention in UK.

[-]

JellyfishGentleman@reddit

[-]

Martinonfire@reddit

For everyone over 40 yes.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/nhs-health-check/

[-]

MD564@reddit

Didn't get diagnosed with my autoimmune disease till I moved to Spain despite having very obvious symptoms for years. I was told by my Spanish doctor to get tests done twice a year minimum. I still have to fight for them here and I have never seen a specialist.

[-]

Typical_Nebula3227@reddit

This is something you do in the UK when you’re like 60.

[-]

JabasMyBitch@reddit

As an American ex-apt, it absolutely does not align with the annual check ups I would get back in the US. I have never had one check up in the 3 years I have been here in the UK. And I am sure that has a lot to do with US healthcare being privatized and profitable, so they lock you in to get that money from medicare/insurance companies.

On the other hand, by husband, a UK-born citizen who has been in the mental health system (if that's what you call it here), gets annual physical check-ups appointed to him every year, maybe twice a year. And he complains about having to do it. But, keep in mind, it took a couple decades of turmoil and hospitalizations for him be get the care he is presently receiving.

I suppose each system is either trying to bring in as much money, or save as money, as possible.

[-]

Pedantichrist@reddit

All of this thread is weird to me, who gets a text message most years asking me to come in for a checkup.

[-]

StonedMason85@reddit

I work in a taxi base and drivers have to go for a full medical check up on a regular basis to keep their license, but it costs around £100 a time. I always think if I get myself financially straight then I’m going to see about getting myself one once a year or so.

[-]

yourvenusdoom@reddit

It’s such a pain to get an appointment when there’s something wrong, and now most GP services use online booking systems where you need to select a specific query. Sometimes you can bring up one issue in your appointment and any other problems you bring up will lead to you being told to book another appointment.

The NHS is generally reactive instead of preventive.

[-]

ChangingMonkfish@reddit

Maybe when you’re older or have some form of private insurance, but generally no, you can’t even get an appointment when you’re actually sick.

[-]

AE_Phoenix@reddit

With the NHS no. Private, very. If you're able to afford it you should get a general checkup once a year. They can pick up on things like cancer far earlier than they would based on you reporting symptoms.

[-]

nehnehhaidou@reddit

Pre2019 I did this each year. Since 2020 they just want a flimsy chat on teams or zoom. GPs round here are just lazy Googlers.

[-]

Dependant on your age, gender, health conditions, and family history, there are standardised check ins on the NHS.

If you are say a man under 30 with no health conditions, no particular family history and no symptoms, then you probably won’t get invited to anything as standard, but that doesn’t mean that is the same for everyone or will always be the same as you get older.

Certain jobs will also pay for private health testing at regular interval, sometimes dependent on job grade and/or age (for my employer I think it’s middle management up aged 30+).

[-]

CointreauSnow@reddit

Regular health checks when there’s nothing wrong with you and you’re not in a high risk group can be counterproductive. The more you get checked for various issues, the more likely it is they’ll find something even if you’re perfectly healthy. No tests or checks are 100% fool-proof and too often they’ll result in false positives or diagnose and treat something that would never have caused you harm.

[-]

greenhotpepper@reddit

And how do you know there's nothing wrong with you if you're not having check ups?

I'd rather have a check up and a reported false positive, than have something go unnoticed and become a bigger problem than it needed to be.

I find it astonishing to argue against something as basic as a medical check up.

Yet another reason the NHS is now seen as a joke by many other countries, even countries that are not in the developed world are running laps around it.

[-]

---x__x---@reddit

Never had one when I lived in the UK.

Now that I moved to the US I have a yearly checkup with bloodwork and urine tests. I figure if I'm paying for the insurance I may as well use it.

A lot of issues can be caught by doing blood tests so it's a nice peace of mind at least.

[-]

overthinker46@reddit

You’re lucky if you can even get 2 appointments within a year

[-]

Due-Arrival-4859@reddit

Probably only for people who are elderly or have conditions

As someone with MS, I get full blood tests every 2-3 months, 2 MRIs a year, maybe a chest scan and then the usual blood pressure and height/weight measurement every visit, including a meeting with a neurologist twice a year

[-]

Raregan@reddit

I haven't been able to register with a doctor for 7 years. I'd be happy to see a doctor if I got shot in the leg never mind going for a general health checkup

[-]

RealRhialto@reddit

If you are usually resident in the U.K. you are entitled to register with a GP (though not necessarily one of your choice).

If you can’t find a GP who will accept you, your local integrated care board (in England, there are similar processes in the devolved administrations) will assign you to a GP.

https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/gps/how-to-register-with-a-gp-surgery/

[-]

Raregan@reddit

I'm in Wales. There is one GP that I can register with that I am in the catchment area for. I have filled out their registration form 5 times (has to be done on person) and I've never been registered there.

Every time I talk to them about it they just tell me they're busy and will get around to it until I give up.

[-]

RealRhialto@reddit

So go to NHS Wales and get them to sort it out. If that fails see your MS.

If you’re resident in the UK you’re entitled to register with a GP.

[-]

Azuras-Becky@reddit

My dad did his best to avoid seeking help for an unusual skin tag under his armpit.

It became, according to his consultant, one of the most aggressive forms of skin cancer he'd ever seen. He was dead six months after diagnosis, despite the NHS bringing in experts from around the country.

If he'd bothered to get an opinion literally a month earlier, he'd probably still be alive..

The NHS is the best thing Britain has ever created, but they're not gods. Don't put stuff off. Get tested, do routine checks, and don't put off getting doctors to look at weird stuff.

[-]

Flobarooner@reddit

No, not at all. They used to be, but not anymore

My gf asked for once recently, she's 25 and hasn't been to the doctor since she was 18 because she just hasn't needed to. I said, you should probably ask for a check-up, just to make sure everything's good and you're not deficient or high in something or other. So she called up and said this, and that she just wanted a general check-up. The receptionist was extremely confused and basically just said "we don't do that.. you need to have something wrong with you to get an appointment"

[-]

carlbandit@reddit

I don't even go to the DRs if I think I might have an issue until it's persisted for a while and doesen't seem to be improving. Never mind just going in for a general check up. I've only just enterted my 30s though so maybe it will change as I get older, but with how busy DRs are, it's unlikely to change.

[-]

rtrs_bastiat@reddit

I wouldn't say they're all that common. You can get the basics done for free at pharmacies. I pay for a two hour test suite every year just to keep on top of things, but I don't think I know anyone who does the same. No chance of getting anything routine like that on the NHS though unless they're actively monitoring a health concern.

[-]

Top-level comments to the OP must contain genuine efforts to answer the question. No jokes, judgements, etc.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!

Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.