The LA times asks us to question the need for yearly physicals. They seem to be suggesting that routine physicals are more likely to yield false-positives in healthy patients that could then lead to more invasive and dangerous testing procedures, and that overall, doctors physical exam skills are inadequate and a poor use of a doctor's time.

What do you think? I find their reasoning somewhat specious. We're constantly being told that preventative measures in health are responsible for net health savings, so if your doctor during your yearly physical is able to encourage you to lose weight, stop smoking, exercise more, monitor your cholesterol etc., it could greatly extend your life while decreasing medical costs. That and this article singles out some of the weakest medical exams, namely breast exams and routine chest x-ray's that haven't shown to be of benefit in preventing disease. However, they leave out the benefit of such screening procedures that are proven to save lives such as colonoscopy for colon cancer, mammograms for breast cancer, pap smears (most effective preventative test ever), routine urinalysis for diabetes, prostate screens etc. Maybe the lesson is that the hands-on exams are losing out to more advanced techniques, but to dissuade people from their yearly checkup seems a bit premature.