|
|
|
|
|
by omegadeep10
1126 days ago
|
|
I work at at a large health insurance company, though not involved in decision-making around annual exams or rate-setting so take that as you will. A lot the decision-making we do is around trying to improve the health outcomes for large populations of members at scale. When dealing with millions of members, interventions that require lots of effort and time are hard to scale up. If the data shows members with annual checkups have better health outcomes on average than members without annual checkups, that is something that's relatively cheap and easy to do with potentially significant impact. There are other benefits to annual checkups as well - catching an expensive condition early can be the difference between a $100,000 episode of care vs. a $10,000 episode of care. To be honest internally I've noticed the tide is shifting on annual checkups. Physician time is limited and every slot is valuable. I believe we're currently exploring virtual care options as a better alternative. |
|
That or it's yet another example of selection bias. There have been so so many things like this where the epidemiological data shows a correlation with health, but there isn't actually a causal link. For example, annual checkups might correlate with better health because it's a more common behavior among people who can afford to do it, and wealthier people tend to be healthier.