Last year, in a much-discussed New York Times article titled “Let’s (Not) Get Physicals,” a physician reporter named Elisabeth Rosenthal argued that annual physical examinations for human patients are pointless. She cited a Canadian government task force recommendation to abandon annual physical examinations because they are “nonspecific,” “inefficient” and “potentially harmful” (in that they may lead to unnecessary tests). The task force said examinations should be replaced with intermittent screening tests for age- and risk-specific conditions (mammograms, Pap tests, etc.). Dr. Rosenthal argued that this logic is sound in the United States as well.
Scrutiny of annual physical examinations for people does not come as a surprise. Health care costs are soaring, and research consistently shows annual physicals don’t save lives. Most treatment is started because a patient feels sick and comes to the doctor — not because of findings in a routine examination.
So, do these human-side rumblings mean that we should re-evaluate the annual or biannual examinations that veterinarians recommend for pets? Are those trips to the vet with seemingly happy, healthy pets really worth the stress and effort for all involved? I’ve asked myself those questions repeatedly. Here are the key points I always return to.
[tweetthis]Are annual exams necessary? [/tweetthis]
Originally Published: Vetstreet.com – April 25, 2013 [Republished on Yahoo.com]
