Private Health Check Ups

[MaximumPete]

I held a Class one medical from the age of 17 to 55 and feel a bit out in the wilderness regarding routine health checks, apart from the self-help one.

Are there specific benefits to be gained from popping along once every couple of years to one of the major players?

MP:confused:

[Lou Scannon]

I tried, as one of the "worried well" as the medics call us, one of these elective body scans for around £600.

This revealed a somewhat dramatic amount of calcium in the coronary arteries that required further checks (no problem).

...so you can be re-assured, but on the other hand you can finish up needing further tests.

Overall, probably worth it.

[gingernut]

Probably worth asking a few questions about what is being screened and why.

How sensitive/specific is the technique in picking up what its meant to?

How invasive is the technique?

Will it make a difference to my doctors management of the condition?

Will it make a difference to my life?



Has your 600 quid made a difference Lou? When will you repeat the exercise? And how often? And if it was that good, don't you think we'd all be having one.

Sorry to be so cynical, but I detest these barstuards who pray on our fears:)

Maximum, have chat to your friendly gp/practice nurse - he or she may be able to perform a few basics, and advise you about what screening is effective.

The ame is there to protect the public, not you,and little he does will make a difference in terms of longevity.

I have the pleasure of paying my ame a couple of hundred quid every few years, and there is probably not much in the medical which would make a difference to my long term health. I have to do it to keep flying.

If anyone knows any different, let me know, as I should then consider this for Jo Bloggs.

[MaximumPete]

Many Thanks

MP;)

[Lou Scannon]

My problem, Gingernut, was that my paid for visits to the AME ended when I reached sixty and the responsibility for getting a "walkround" inspection of the body fell to me.

The £600 told me that there was nothing nasty growing in the body, the spine was good, lungs ok for my age etc etc. However it did reveal that I scored rather high on the calcium in the coronary arteries competition. The guidance said that a score of 400 indicated that I had a 90% chance of a coronary obstruction and then went on to say that my score was 2,900.

I 'phoned to check that there hadn't been a typing error and that the decimal point was in the correct place...and it was.

As a hangover from my flying days I was still seeing a cardiologist and he ran a 24 hour holter and stress test. It seems that my coronaries do have an enormous amount of calcium in them, but so far show no signs of any obstruction. It is however essential to drive my cholesterol down as low as possible with the latest drug Atorvastatin (bit expensive but good value says NICE).

None of this had shown up in all the ECG's and other tests that I have had so for my money it was worth paying to get the early warning when I could still do something about it.

...but check with me in twenty years time to see if my opinion has changed!

[gingernut]

Thanks Lou, that's fair enough comment.

I don't wish to be to cynical, as it could get me into a big clinical debate with my learned posters, (and I'm hoping for a peaceful weekend- spot of fishing, with no ppruning), but I'd question the evidence behind the scoring thing.

(I notice the word guidance in your reply).


The problem with these tests, is that if you look hard enough into the human body, you will invariably find something wrong- somewhere, and it doesn't always need fixing.

Having said that, I remember giving some advice a few years ago on this very forum, to a fella who lost a very good friend to a sudden heart attack. His friend was fit and athletic, and his death was "out of the blue." He was asking, at the time, whether or not a method of screening could have detected this earlier, and my reply was that although we do have some reliable methods, (BP/Cholesterol etc), the science isn't that good at the moment. I don't know much about your test, but perhaps you are the pioneer for future patients.

It sounds like you think you've got value for your money, and I'm glad your feeling well. As for the Atorvastatin, some think its so good, it should be added to the water:)

Cheers and good health :)


ps: there you go, I was determined not to get into an argument, and I've ended up arguing with myself- wheres Mac the Knife when you need him- he's a lot more fun:-)