[antasvara]

The insurance company that provides your ACA plans gets money from the government for doing so. How much money they get is tied to a few things (not an exhaustive list):

1. On average, how healthy is your group of ACA plan holders? If the group has a bunch of chronic conditions, they get more subsidy money to offset the increased care costs. Going to the PCP allows them to have official medical evidence of those conditions.

2. The government gives these plans quality ratings to help people compare them to each other. These ratings are partially based on how often patients get their annual screenings and patient satisfaction. A gift card for a PCP visit accomplishes both aims.

There are also more practical concerns. Preventative care is cheaper than an acute incident for the company. You'd rather catch an arrhythmia at a PCP appointment than pay for the cost of a heart attack.

[readthenotes1]

I believe the more recent studies show that annual PCP visits actually reduce quality of health. Seems contrary, but a lot of doctors in the USA will overreact for fear of future litigation. Since most interventions have some possibility of negative consequences, it apparently adds up.

On your specific example, my understanding is that the odds are very low that a random PCP visit will detect an arrhythmia.

Of course, if you mentioned to doc that you're having fainty spells or heart palpitations, then maybe hen'll give you a holter monitor-- but then you've now increased your risk by waiting for the PCP visit instead of doing it when you first notice the symptoms.

[gatlin]

I believe you but I'm interested in the studies mentioned in your first sentence.