What Zeke Missed on an Annual Physical

What Zeke Missed on an Annual Physical

46
SHARE

flying cadeuciiIn January, Ezekiel Emanuel – one of the country’s foremost health experts – threw a presumptive grenade into the national discourse: the annual physical is worthless. As we watched the initial burst of reactionary fervor following hisNew York Times opinion piece, we weren’t quite sure what to think.

Then we realized why: in our training and burgeoning careers in primary care, neither of us has ever scheduled an “annual physical” for a patient. To us, the notion of such a visit – for scheduled, non-urgent care, and one not specifically for chronic disease management – is already dated. Given current trends in American health care delivery and professional training, we argue it is one that may well soon be obsolete.

But does that obsolescence change the value of that time – whether 15 minutes or 60 – with a patient, on a regular interval? Our perspective from medicine’s emerging front line offers a resounding no.

The most obvious argument for regular primary care visits is preventive care. Dr. Emanuel bases much of his argument on the validity (or lack thereof) of annual physicals. Drawing off that same evidence base, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force sets recommendations for evidence-based screening in various populations. Even the young and healthy benefit from cervical cancer screening, initiated at 21 years of age and continued every three years provided negative results until the age of 30 (when the recommendations change slightly). Patients with higher risk earn further screenings, based on whether they smoke, their weight, their age and their family history.

As American medicine shifts away from volume-based reimbursement, we have learned – from the outset of our practice – to not order testing indiscriminately, but instead to choose wisely. Judicious application of validated preventive screens offers societal value – even though, to Dr. Emanuel’s point, we must weigh the downstream implications of that testing as we deliver care. Listening to heart sounds and checking reflexes may not have value, as he suggests – but then again, we are part of a generation taught not to reflexively order echocardiography for every aberrant noise we hear. The value proposition of preventive screening, then, may be shifting in favor of its utility.

The larger, more subtle argument, though, rests on the value of the patient-provider (and care team) relationship – one that is increasingly quantifiable. It’s true that in the 10 minute appointments so often seen in primary care, we can’t – and don’t – fit everything important into the visit. Many practices ask providers and patients to agree on 2-3 issues to discuss per visit. The important questions of alcohol use, depression, food and housing access, and other life stresses are usually deferred. Care teams’ understanding of those issues, however, is critical to providing good care. Recently, at a ‘wellness’ visit, a colleague discovered her patient did not understand why he was taking his blood pressure medications and aspirin, and also did not understand what blood pressure actually is. He has been her patient for two years. To have the time to explain that high blood pressure alone is asymptomatic and to gain increased insight into a patient’s health literacy will provide benefits longitudinally in that patient’s care, as we’ve seen from recent pilots that enable certain patients – particularly the sickest of the sick – that critical time. From both that evidence and our own experiences in novel primary care delivery models (such as the Veterans Healthcare Administration’s Patient Aligned Care Teams and the ambulatory ICU), we know this information is rarely captured in one or two visits.

The same is true when we consider planning for end of life care and setting personal goals of care – another effort best accomplished within an established, trusted relationship. Some of the most impressive end of life care may be in Shiprock, New Mexico on the Navajo reservation. Physicians there take care of their patients across the spectrum of care – from the clinic to the ICU. People die with their families around them, peacefully, and often without ventilators and aggressive interventions. This can almost fully be attributed to the indelible patient-provider relationships in that community.

Strong relationships between patients and care teams have the potential to motivate and empower individuals to better manage their health – either through preventive measures or chronic disease management. At Iora Health, each patient is assigned a health coach who works with them to meet their needs and better their health. The Iora practices have met their patients where they are in order to help them take charge of their own health. This includes “drive-by” lab checks for patients on blood-thinning medications who did not have more than a couple minutes to stop at the clinic due to work and family obligations. Patients call their health coaches with questions and clarifications and are able to access a health coach or physician at any time.

As a profession, we need to change the way we portray and practice primary care in the U.S. The notion of an “annual physical” as an appointment where a full exam is done and an array of non-specific tests ordered should be diffused. Rather, people should know their health care team and view them as partners and enablers to better health. Individuals should feel that the exams done and tests ordered are tailored to their particular needs. Work remains to be done – but the progress being made in pockets across America gives hope that we can achieve that lofty goal.

Telling the public to skip their annual physicals sends the wrong message. The upfront, unyielding investment in people and relationships – supporting topics as wide ranging as smoking cessation, housing insecurity and the struggles of raising children – will save innumerable dollars downstream. Primary care practices connected with and imbedded in communities in meaningful ways, where visits are a driver of change, not revenue, will achieve the impact that the annual physical initially aimed to effect.

In an era where we are moving the proverbial needle in reducing disparities in access to care, with millions of uninsured Americans finally entering the health care system, let’s focus on thoughtful, nuanced medical care that prioritizes relationships above all else. To attack the annual physical as low-value misses the emerging point: that the value is in the partnership created – and that that partnership is worth all the time in the world.

Ali Khan, MD, MPP is a clinician-innovator at Iora Health and a clinical instructor of medicine at Yale. He currently serves as the chair of the American College of Physicians’ National Council of Resident/Fellow Members.

Leah Marcotte, MD is a senior medicine resident at the University of Washington. As a medical student at Penn, she served as a fellow at the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Among her varied policy pursuits, she serves as an associate editor for the journal Health Care.

 The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of any of the affiliated organizations, including Iora Health, the American College of Physicians, Yale University and the University of Washington.

Leave a Reply

46 Comments on "What Zeke Missed on an Annual Physical"


Member
Rachel
Oct 3, 2015

This is an interesting debate; the annual health physical is worthless? That is quite a shock coming from one of the country’s foremost health experts. I thought annual health physicals were important in preventative care. I foresee that if annual health physicals become obsolete, there would be a much higher cost for diseases that could have been prevented.

Guest
Amy Berman
Mar 23, 2015

Bravo, Leah and Ali.

Proactive primary care offers the chance to support health, not just respond to presenting issues. Routine care is a significant opportunity to inform and affect health. It is surprising to see the range of comments suggesting there may or may not be value in the annual. I suggest readers consider a world with no routine care, only reactive care in illness or crisis. How much of that higher cost care (often provided in the walls of a hospital) could be prevented? It is not just routine dental care that is of value.

In infants we look at stages of development during routine physicals and proactively address developmental delays. In older adults we may look at functional and/or cognitive decline in order to respond with changes to treatment, inclusion of social supports and services, and advance care planning.

And how else is your provider to know you have changed when they have no baseline? Is it dementia or (sudden onset) delirium, for example? There is value in routine pro-active care.

And Leah, I wish you the very best. UW is so lucky to have you. Amy

Guest
William Palmer MD
Mar 23, 2015

Well, we unequivocally know that it is important for some of health care to have periodic examinations. That “some” is dentistry.

Guest
Ed Corbett, MD
Mar 22, 2015

The physician – patient interaction will need to change due to value based payment models. Former standard practices like the annual physical will give way to more evidenced based care, with better data driven clinical content, deployed by more efficient care teams. As a physician, I can envision this leading to more productive physician-patient communication.

Guest
Susan Dentzer
Mar 22, 2015

Ali’s and Leah’s best recommendation is the notion of diffusing many (but not all) of the activities often conducted at an annual physical throughout the care process — for example, conversations between physicians and patients over such critical issues as healthful lifestyle habits, or even end-of-life; reviewing immunizations; determining the need for preventive measures or screening exams. The new care models such as Iora’s, plus regular electronic health record or registry reviews followed up by patient reminders, should allow those aspects of care to occur on a continuous basis, and outside the context of a single annual encounter.

We can’t discount the fact that the now anachronistic annual physical arose in an earlier era before these newer technologies and approaches were available, and was at least part a way to make primary care somewhat more financially sustainable (bring the patient in whether or not he or she needs to be seen) at a time when so many other incentives were driving in the other direction. Good for Zeke for calling for change; also good for Ali and Leah for underscoring the importance of new care models.

Guest
Neil Quinn
Mar 20, 2015

Has anyone noticed that “Physicial” is spelled incorrectly in the article’s title? Perhaps it’s meant to rhyme with Ezekiel, as the great Dr. Seuss would have it. 😉

Guest
Lotty
Mar 20, 2015

Here’s the fun part of an Obamacare visit. I am told I should have extensive tests to check a lump in my breast. Tests are ordered without any concern I have to pay CASH for these tests! After calling the clinic, I find I cannot afford these tests because I am paying $800 a month for a 50 yr old couple to have this wonderful insurance with a $12,600 deductible before insurance begins picking up a percentage. WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE IN WORSE CONDITION because we cannot afford testing! Even the blood work is costing us now. I was with Anthem (individual) for years and never had these problems!

Guest
Peter1
Mar 20, 2015

“I was with Anthem (individual) for years and never had these problems!”

You mean you never had breast cancer with Anthem, or you never had to pay deductibles? Did you not know you were signing up for a high deductible plan?

You’ll have to be more specific about Antham’s Plan and the plan under ACA with another insurance carrier. Were you private pay with Anthem or through an employer?

Are you getting a subsidy with ACA?

Guest
Lotty
Mar 20, 2015

We have had health issues but you never had to worry with Anthem. Like I can no longer go to the clinic where all my other mammograms were and that specialized in breast cancer. The deductible was $3000 and payments were $200 a month. Anthem doubled my premium when the Marketplace kicked in and the deductible went up. My husband’s insurance was going up to $1000 a month. These are both individual policies. If we didn’t have subsidies, our insurance as a couple would run over $1400 a month with this same crappy insurance. We can’t afford the Anthem plans. They ran close to $2000 a month before subsidies. I am on the upper tier gold in plans I believe. The main reason I picked this plan is we have a $1000 deductible on medication and then the copay kicks in. My husband will easily pay over $1000 a month for prescriptions. Two of the pills cost over close to $1000 a month before insurance. IF you are not low income.

If you go onto the Marketplace and look(at least in Indiana), you may see that $12,600 is the common deductible now per family/couple. Nothing kicks in (besides well care) until after that is met. I think its $6500 for my son on his single person policy. My son is on the same insurance and he had to pay for all his blood work from his physical.

I called a local place that works with small businesses and individuals to help them decide on coverage. I got the owner. He said his insurance runs over $2500 a month and he had the $12,600 deductible too. So he couldn’t do any better than I with all his knowledge.

Guest
Peter1
Mar 20, 2015

Lotty, I understand your frustration. Part of these increases are due to greater coverage because of ACA. No lifetime minimums, no pre-exist as well as other coverages.

I’m not sure why Indiana is so high. At 64 I can get a policy for $565/mth. with about a $6500 deductible – no subsidy.

If you are a business owner you can deduct from your income tax, as an individual you can also deduct but not until a threshold of income is reached – but that doesn’t pay the bills now.

A subsidy of $600/mth is quite high, at least the ACA provides that.

All I can suggest is complain to your political reps.

Guest
Peter1
Mar 20, 2015

Thanks for responding Barry. Yes, my coverage is for single person.This year I’m on Medicare, so I squeaked through without ACA.

Barry, I’ve talked to a couple of shocked people buying post ACA coverage and not understanding the mandated coverage additions. Even with subsidy these people are paying more than previous a-la-cart coverage, although the added pre-exist and no lifetime max is popular, I guess not when they have to pay for it.

Guest
Barry Carol
Mar 20, 2015

Peter1,

Your quote of $565 per month in NC is for one person, I presume, whereas Lotty’s $1,400 per month (pre-subsidy) quote is for two people. That’s a 25% difference on a per person basis but it’s not unusual. It would probably cost even more in NY and NJ as premiums for the same coverage for people of the same age can easily vary by 2X or more across the country.

Lotty probably could have purchased a policy pre-ACA that didn’t cover maternity benefits which would make a significant difference in the premium but that’s not possible now. It does sound like she and her husband are getting substantial value from their drug coverage though.

The other issue to keep in mind is that most people don’t have high medical expenses every year. Even among seniors, for example, only 15% of them reach the Part D donut hole in any given year and two-thirds of them don’t come out the other side into the catastrophic coverage zone.

Guest
Lotty
Mar 20, 2015

Another thing I should add: Policies are either national or local. I could only afford one that was “In Network” in Indiana. The Insurance company owner picked a national plan. We don’t travel much so I have to pray when we do, nothing happens. The way the plan reads “Out of Network” equals zero coverage. That’s it. Doesn’t give you a warm fuzzy when you have a husband with 3 vessel coronary heart disease…

Guest
William Palmer MD
Mar 20, 2015

When you have a bronze or silver plan (actuarial value 60% and 70% respectively), you are paying out of pocket 40% and 30% of the covered services yourself….in the form of deductibles, co-payments and co-insurance. The warm fuzzy secure feeling that good insurance is supposed to give a person can hardly be felt with such imperfect insurance. In fact, you could feel less insured than if you had none. This is because you must feel on the hook for coming up with the complete deductible and all the co-pays when you are in the midst of an episode of care. If you refuse to keep feeding the cash maw, then you appear to be baulking at treatment and appear to be uncooperative with your doctor. This is a worse feeling than being without insurance altogether, when, in this circumstance, every provider is feeling sympathetic and trying to figure out ways to lessen your burden. So you feel everyone is on your same team.
By being forced to by such a shabby product, the percentage of folks buying exchange insurance, I think, will be less and less as the years go on. You will hear more and more “It’s better to pay the tax and not get the insurance.”

Guest
Barry Carol
Mar 20, 2015

“When you have a bronze or silver plan (actuarial value 60% and 70% respectively), you are paying out of pocket 40% and 30% of the covered services yourself….in the form of deductibles, co-payments and co-insurance.”

This is not accurate. The actuarial value percentage term means the percentage of costs likely to be paid by insurance for a standard average risk POPULALTION. A healthy individual who only needs preventive care will have 100% of his costs covered. Conversely, if your Bronze plan deductible is $6.350 for an individual or $12,700 for a couple / family and you have a catastrophe like a low birthweight premature baby with many complications that racks up a seven figure hospital bill to care for, you will only be liable for the deductible and there can be no maximum claims limit that the insurer must pay. If your healthcare needs are fully within the deductible, none of your costs will be covered.

In comparing the cost and coverage of this exchange plan with Lotty’s former Anthem coverage, was it like-for-like in terms of the services, tests and procedures that were covered? For example, did the Anthem plan cover maternity benefits, chiropractic care, mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse treatment? Before the ACA, men and older women were often able to buy plans that excluded maternity benefits which significantly lowered the premium from what it would have been if it covered maternity benefits. They could exclude other benefits that they didn’t think they would ever need as well including mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse.

Guest
William Palmer MD
Mar 20, 2015

@Carol
I think I was talking about an average risk person in an average risk population. How else can I talk?

But you make an excellent point: some folks can pay more than the average as estimated in the actuarial value. So we might have Lotty paying 40% of her “covered” costs OOP even though she is in a silver plan with 70% actuarial value plan. And, of course, as you pointed out, she could pay much less than 30% also.

Let’s hope that the folks who are really ill do not have the bronze or even the silver plans. Or hope they are rich and have brimming pockets.

Guest
Peter1
Mar 21, 2015

William, that ‘s the failure of HDHPs . People buy them because that’s all the premium they can afford, not because they’re prepared to fork over the deductibles.

If the huge deductible is due in the first or second year of the plan insured may not have the war chest saved to pay them – if they ever save for that hurricane day.

Guest

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the ACA might allow people to combine a direct-pay primary care plan — like Doc Rob’s practice — with a high-deductible catastrophic coverage plan.

Some direct-pay practices charge a pretty reasonable monthly fee…just looked at Doc Rob’s site and it’s $30-60/month depending on age.

This might be better for people than buying a “shabby” insurance product (I agree, those bronze plans do sound shabby!). And esp if you have chronic conditions or significant health risks, it’s better than skipping primary care and “paying the tax”.

Guest
Peter1
Mar 21, 2015

“but I believe the ACA might allow people to combine a direct-pay primary care plan — like Doc Rob’s practice — with a high-deductible catastrophic coverage plan.”

I don’t think it’s up to ACA is it? ACA is not an insurance plan. If an insurance carrier wants to offer this then I think they can??

Guest

The ACA defines what it means to have health insurance, in order to avoid the tax penalty.

Guest
Mar 19, 2015

agree, face to face best

Guest
William Palmer MD
Mar 19, 2015

You want someone who can pick up the signs and symptoms of polymyalgia rheumatica and will search for dysplastic nevi and skin signs of vascular insufficiency. Do they understand IBS and the Rome criteria?

In other words, you probably need to visit someone with an advanced nursing degee, a PA or an MD or DO.

Guest
Leah Marcotte
Mar 19, 2015

My apologies! Ceci**

Guest
Ceci Connolly
Mar 19, 2015

Gosh, where to begin with this one! I fear this discussion has got apples, oranges, peaches, grapefruit and watermelons all mixed up together. A clinician can learn a patient has gained weight without an annual physical. A doctor can develop a solid, trusting relationship with a patient without an annual physical. And who says it has to be a doctor? What if a patient develops that bond with a nurse practitioner?
It’s not that it is “bad” to visit someone periodically with expertise in medicine and health. It’s that the system’s misaligned incentives are more about items to code (tests, procedures, medications) than our well being. And then there are all of the false positives!
Dr. Kernisan’s concept of an “annual review of your health” is an appealing one. This is less about the traditional ffs visit that generates $X in revenue and more about fostering a culture of health that puts consumers at the center.

Guest
Leah Marcotte
Mar 19, 2015

Cici, Thanks so much. Our argument wasn’t to encourage the return of ‘annual physicals’ and was certainly not to promote the traditional FFS system, but to highlight the value of primary care, particularly in non-acute care visits. (I also prefer the term ‘health review’ or ‘health check-in’ as was coined at an SGIM Town Hall on the topic.) One of the concerns we had after reading Dr. Emanuel’s article, though, was that it is rather discouraging of routine primary care in general presented to a population where there is a lot of morbidity (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, etc).

Could not agree more re: misaligned incentives, reforming payment and refocusing on person-centered care.

Ultimately, very happy this is generating rich discussion including the role and delivery of primary care in the U.S., which I imagine was also the intention of Dr. Emanuel’s piece.

Guest

I think it’s certain better to think of an “annual review of your health” rather than annual physical. It’s good to make an effort to review the big picture of a person’s health, and also to make sure that clinician and patient are on the same page as to prevention, management of chronic disease, etc.

Incidentally I do these reviews in my geriatric consultation practice because the beleaguered PCPs are not getting around to it and many frail older people have very fragmented care.

In my experience these kinds of meetings are most productive when done face-to-face, AND when everyone’s done a little prep and data review beforehand. If not face-to-face, at least by phone. Why? Because some things are much easier via conversation, like problem-solving, or picking among a variety of options, or understanding someone’s values so that a clinician can provide the right advice.

Does it have to be done with a doctor? Probably not, if your health isn’t complicated. But if it is complicated, you need a regular review with a doctor AND a good primary care relationship too.

Re Rob’s model, I don’t know that we’ll go this route but you certainly could give people vouchers to go get their care from direct-pay providers. I believe some Medicaid programs do this for support services and they call it Cash & Counsel. Those patients who don’t want this responsibility can stick w Kaiser or with conventional insurance.

Guest
Mar 19, 2015

Ideally this preventive health maintenance would all be done in the community, with family doctors / nurses who live near the patient… that’s how it’s done in some places in the world. But not America…

Guest
Peter1
Mar 19, 2015

“Ideally this preventive health maintenance would all be done in the community…But not America…”

Wholeheartedly agree, especially for at risk communities. Caregivers need to see where and how people live to fully understand their health needs.

Guest
William Palmer MD
Mar 19, 2015

How can it be bad to visit with someone who knows more about physiology, medicine and pathology than you do?…periodically?

Ideally, such a person should be in our own family and we could talk to them every day. You don’t have to call these visits a “physical” if that term is too scary.

Now, if that expert is too proactive and costing you too much money or time or hassle or adding too much risk to your life, that is a different problem. These faults can be corrected, but having too much knowledge about your own body or mind seems impossible, unless one is a self-injurious hypochondriac, in which case that problem should also probably be discussed with the wise one.