For the first time in my life, I have hit my deductible AND reached my out-of-pocket maximum. I now have three months of actual free healthcare, which is unheard of in the US. What should I get done?
For the first time in my life, I have hit my deductible AND reached my out-of-pocket maximum. I now have three months of actual free healthcare, which is unheard of in the US. What should I get done?
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!
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
-doesn’t even require a finger in your bum
Then what the heck am I paying these deductibles for?? >:(
What if I want a finger in my bum?
Swear to god I'd rather take a finger in the ass than a needle in my arm
PSA sucks, it has both low sensitivity and low specificity.
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 correctionThere are primarily 2 stool tests available today, one has significant false positives, the other doesn't.
I forget the names, or I'd send you a link. It's been about a year since I looked it up. I know my insurance uses the more accurate one, fortunately.
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.
Not sure if your link is the same as I've read, but yes, the thing with prostate cancer is that treatment doesn't seem to change the outcome.
This is most likely because it usually doesn't develop until mid-50's or later, and grows so slowly that it doesn't have time to kill you.
I think the concern would be it occurring in younger ages, or it growing faster than typical.
So test and monitor is likely a good thing, treatment shouldn't be a given, unless there are clear signs.
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.
Yeah, as an early 30s AMAB having to go in for annual checkups for insurance, two different doctors told me there really isn't shit to do for someone my age
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.”