I've been seen seeing the "TV Doctors" commercials recently from Cigna. And it got me wondering. Strictly from a financial sense, what is the estimated average benefit (or cost) of annual checkups. Seeing these commercials run so heavily would make me think that they see this as beneficial to them financially.

Even if it is being done more to enhance their image than to directly make money, it would seem they've decided that the cost of annual checkups must be fairly reasonable for them.

So what is the estimated financial benefit of an average checkup?

Though I really have to imagine there has to be a wealth of data on this question out there SOMEWHERE, let's definitely try to simplify things in hopes of getting some kind of an answer by making the consideration of costs just strictly the net return for a patient paying all costs at approximate market value. Obviously it probably changes by age, and seeing such fluctuations how would be absolutely brilliant, but an average value would be just fine. And there's quite a lot of estimation and fluidity in such values, as costs and values change... so even old data would work great for me. Just to get a rough idea with some support.

Is there not such a value out there?

  • 2
    there are a lot of numbers you might be asking for when you say "cost" - do you mean what the practice needs to spend to give you that service (in salaries, rent etc), what the practice can charge you or your insurance for that service, what other revenue the practice is likely to bring in if there are followup tests and such required as a result of you getting a physical, or what you are likely to gain by catching something early while it can still be treated or reversed more cheaply compared to waiting until the symptoms drive you to seek treatment. Which are you trying to understand? – Kate Gregory May 21 '17 at 14:46
  • @KateGregory you're right indeed, I tried to improve the question. Basically consider it as the market value costs of healthcare decisions for an average customer (as what constitutes life threatening I think is a blurry line?) in terms of what they would be driven to treat. So it'd just about boil down to (the risen cost of things they could've treated sooner and cheaper had they known better) - ((cost of checkups) + (cost of things they would've treated that would not have ever caused issue had they not known from checkups)). – JeopardyTempest May 23 '17 at 7:22
  • However, though it would seem such data would be of significant focus given it's widespread applicability and the money involved... given the challenge of finding such data in peer reviewed work or other publications, I'll certainly take any answer that has any even rough connection to the options you suggested, as any would really offer a bit of insight into the true monetary value of a checkup. – JeopardyTempest May 23 '17 at 7:24
  • I have no idea of US costs, but here is a Canadian document: health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/phys_services/docs/… for the actual checkup itself, not any tests arising from it. – Kate Gregory May 23 '17 at 10:26
  • Well, if you want to know about costs from the patient perspective, I think in the U.S most insurance companies cover annual checkups for free. – Keshav Srinivasan May 23 '17 at 21:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.