Non symptom related routine medical testing

Factual Questions
1

I’m 36 and unemployed, but even when I had reasonably good health care, I’ve found doctors to be somewhat lazy (one even had me do an internet search on her computer!) and/or insistent on concentrating on specific issues. But I’ve known so many people with non specific malaise (and I admit I’m somewhat conditioned by media such as House to think anyone could have random bizarre pathologies). I mean, most people are not in top condition. It’s easy to blame it on imperfect diet or too much drinking, or stressful job/family life but, well, it could also be some kind of real, treatable medical condition. My aunt told me she was eventually diagnosed as having a blood parasite, after eliminating other things.

So I’m wondering: What are the pros/cons and cost/benefit ratio with regard to broad spectrum testing?

And more specifically, is there some list, of diagnostic tests, arranged from least to most costly?

What is the ease/cost with regard to nutrients, hormones, pathogens, viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites, toxins etc?

Or how about least to most complicated?

There are probably a great number of things that can be blood tested, in terms of blood content.

Then there are things which are genetically tested.

Then swabs of other areas.

Then MRI/CAT/X-ray/etc.

Also, in the following scenarios, which tests are it beneficial to insist on?

  1. One is rich.

  2. One is not rich, but the amazing reversal of quality of life assuming the test is taken and needed, is so much so, that the cost is ignorable.

  3. One reaches a certain age.

Also, hey it’s something that’s hard to quantify. Any suggestions as to how to quantify the benefit (cost obviously is in monetary units) of particular diagnostic tests? In suffering? In life expectancy? In??

2

I consider the post by Qadgop the Mercotan (post #2) in this thread to be the best post in the history of the SDMB:

He makes the point that not only is a full-body MRI expensive, but there’s no good reason to think that giving one to somebody with no specific symptoms would be medically helpful on average. Every medical test has some (perhaps tiny) chance of harming the patient. In the case of most medical tests which are given because a patient has specific symptoms, the chances of harm are small enough and the chances of benefit are large enough that it’s clearly useful to give the test. In the case of giving a patient with no specific symptoms a full-body MRI, it’s possibly the case that the average harm would outweight the average benefit from the MRI and from the biopsies that would then have to be done.

3

Um, yeah, what I said in 2004. Thanks for the hearty endorsement, Wendall! <<blush>>

Here’s a current link to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. They rigorously evaluate clinical research in order to assess the merits of preventive measures, including screening tests, counseling, immunizations, and preventive medications.

If you have a concern about a particular common condition or disease, they will probably have information about who should be screened for said disease, how said screening should take place, and then back it up with evidence as to how strongly this recommendation is endorsed.