Biologically male procedures only. EDIT: If the two people who downvoted this question could explain their reasoning, I would be super interested. No judgements. This is a safe space!
Do you snore? Get a sleep study and a CPAP - thats pricy! Need a colonoscopy? Gel shots in your knees? Any family histories that would warrant testing for cancer markers?
Just had Inspire surgery. How do you think I hit my maxes lol! What I do think I have also is arthritis.
I was curious so I looked up the inspire website… this has got to be the best accidentally hilarious medical video I have ever seen:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BOnZjPD6n5Q
Who directed this monstrosity!?
I only made it to the 0:28 mark. That may have been the worst “acting” I have ever seen.
This is the perfect opportunity to recreationally infect yourself with rare short term diseases. Try breaking your arm or nose so you have a story. Self harm has never been so cheap.
Edit: See evasive_chimpanzee’s comment here, as the following seems to be incorrect information
Seriously though get checked for prostate cancer. Especially if you’re over 25 it’s very possible and catching it early will be a massive difference.
Same for everyone reading this. I doubt it’s that expensive so please look into it and get checked if affordable where you are.
Checking for prostate cancer is super easy now and doesn’t even require a finger in your bum. It’s a simple blood test that is far more accurate than the traditional manual method. I get one done every time I have a physical since they just add it on to the other stuff they check my blood for.
I would talk to your doctor about it for your case specifically rather than advocating broadly for prostate cancer screenings.
Huh, I’m always happy to proven wrong. thank you for bringing this up.
Is this still relevant however with blood testing becoming more prevelant? The main reasons listed are due to harms caused by probing both physical and psychological along with false positives which out-weigh the positives of a 0.128% life saving outcome. It’s been 6, nearly 7 years now and prostate testing is both more accurate and non-invasive
Either way, this body is currently in the final research plan stage of updating the recommendation.
https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/draft-update-summary/prostate-cancer-screening-adults
I’d agree we should stand by the current assessment though until it changes. Thank you for the correction
I have no clue, it’s just something I’ve read about a little. It’s definitely not my area of expertise, so take this with a grain of salt.
From what I understand, prostate cancer is usually very slow, and it’s possible to have a little spot of it for years that doesn’t affect you. For some people, the right answer to finding a prostate tumor is to just monitor it, but obviously, people freak out when they have cancer, and want treatment. Cancer treatments are all no joke, so it seems that you could sacrifice a lot to treat something that would have just chilled there not hurting you.
I have no clue about the blood tests. If it’s like a “yes or no” for prostate cancer, it might have that same disadvantage. If it tells the Dr something more like type of prostate cancer or growth, it’s a different story.
I was actually told by my doctor that unless you have a history of colon or prostate cancers in the family, advisory boards are pushing testing to past 40.
Idk. When I worked oncology all our prostate patients were very young men way before 40.
But thats anecdotal. I don’t have any numbers. But whats the worst thing that can happen when you get a prostate check? That they don’t find anything?
I mean the downsides are basically cost, another stick/blood draw, potential for false positive and further anxiety/testing. No weigh-in on whether or not any individual should at any specific time, but even less-invasive screenings are not zero risk.
Excerpt from the US Preventative Task Force about prostate cancer screening:
“An elevated PSA level may be caused by prostate cancer but can also be caused by other conditions, including an enlarged prostate (benign prostatic hyperplasia) and inflammation of the prostate (prostatitis). Some men without prostate cancer may therefore have positive screening results (ie, “false-positive” results). Men with a positive PSA test result may undergo a transrectal ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy of the prostate to diagnose prostate cancer.”
Do every test available for prevention and prophylaxis.
Get your general practitioner to do a full health check, ECG, EEG, cardiac ultrasound, a full blood panel, bloodpressure, pulmonary function, skin cancer prevention ect.
Schedule a gastroscopy and colonoscopy.
Check in with an urologist to get your prostate and urinary tract checked.
If you can, get a full body scan. Either PET or MRI.
Nearly every serious disease or health issue is easier prevented or treated when caught before it casues real issues.
Every cancer there is, has a better outcome and is easier treated when found early. Most of them are silent until very late in the game.
This is something I would recommend to anyone: Take advantage of every preventative messure or examination that is available to you!
There is no illness that you can detect too early.
Omfg, don’t get a PET-scan ‘just because’. You would literally have to be injected with radioactive particles. The other stuff, while not necessary, will atleast not kill you faster.
Last paragraph is also massively oversimplified. Getting a ‘you have cancer’-speech and treatment for a superslow growing prostatecancer will fuck with your mind and body more than the cancer itself. That’s why most health care systems advise against general PSA screening.
Just to provide some data on the radiation dose. It’s everyone’s own decision whether a ‘willy-nilly’ PET scan is worth it.
From the English Wikipedia:
FDG, which is now the standard radiotracer used for PET neuroimaging and cancer patient management, has an effective radiation dose of 14 mSv.
The amount of radiation in FDG is similar to the effective dose of spending one year in the American city of Denver, Colorado (12.4 mSv/year). […T]he whole body occupational dose limit for nuclear energy workers in the US is 50 mSv/year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography#Safety
From the German Wikipedia:
Es ist bei einer Strahlendosis von 1 Sievert (Sv), der 100 Menschen ausgesetzt sind, mit 5 Todesfällen durch Strahlenkrebs zu rechnen […]. Man müsste also 100.000 PET-Untersuchungen durchführen, um 35 Todesfälle an Strahlenkrebs (nach einer mittleren Latenzzeit von etwa 15 Jahren für Leukämie und etwa 40 Jahren für solide Tumoren) zu verursachen, das heißt etwa eine auf 3000 Untersuchungen
If 100 people received a radiation dose of 1 Sievert (Sv), one would expect 5 deaths due to radiation-induced cancer […]. One would need 100,000 PET scans in order to cause 35 cancer deaths (after a median wait duration of 15 years for leucemia and 40 years for solid tumors), which is about 1 in 3000 scans.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronen-Emissions-Tomographie#Strahlenexposition
Teeth are not covered by health insurance in the U.S. (I know. We all know)
For those not in the US: it may be covered, but normally it’s a separate insurance plan and not covered by your regular health insurance.
It also varies what type of “dental” care. Some mouth/gum surgeries may be covered by the health plan. I think most dental plans cover checkups. All this varies wildly with your employer and insurance election, though.
Was just going to point this out too. It’s so stupid.
I’ve also done the math on dental insurance vs out of pocket and a few times, out of pocket was significantly cheaper than the service + insurance.
I’ve done the same math recently and decided it would be cheaper just to pay myself and keep a bit of savings around for anything extra. I could not find a plan that would pay out more than $2k in a year, and that’s not even a month of rent some places.
Vasectomy if you don’t plan on having kids. Also consider mental healthcare. Everybody could use a little bit now and then.
May not be the same in all cases, but with my insurance mental healthcare is its own separate thing through a completely different company, much like dental and vision usually is. So if OP is in the same situation it’s a different bucket and would have its own costs not associated with the medical deductible being met.
