A Link that I thought had some very good information.
Interesting. Also, in light of so many people without health insurance or limited coverage, "advanced blood testing" and heart image scanning might not be available to a lot of people. I agree prevention and finding out earlier so diet & exercise and medication, if needed, can be emphasized sooner in one's life, is a very good idea. Unfortunately, insurance companies don't like to, from the "get-go" authorize the more expensive tests, but rather prefer to cover less costly ones first, unless some condition in the patient warrants further testing. At least that has been my experience. One doesn't start at the top of the line tests, but goes through the less invasive (and less costly) ones first. And doctors must follow the insurance coverage protocol and order of tests if they wish reimbursement to the fullest amount, so patients aren't faced with astronomical fees out of pocket. If the patients are fortunate to even have coverage, in the first place. :o/
I know for years my blood pressure was monitored every 3-4 months with doctor visits (I have insurance), on medications, and regular blood work at the same intervals, which alerted us to the cholesterol issues. However, there was no indication I'd already *had* a heart attack or that vessels were blocked until I flunked at EKG a year and a half ago, in preparation for a minor surgery. This, after years & years of coverage and monitoring and blood work. And only after a heart catheterization did it become evident I had dead heart muscle from a heart attack for which I never had symptoms nor any problems, and 3 so completely clogged heart vessels that stints were not an option. So, obviously, the testing in place and authorized, did not give my doctor or I any advanced "warnings," so to speak.
I do have to admit, though, for some of those years I was *not* eating healthy, low fat, etc., nor was I getting regular exercise. :// So, that contributed to the "silent" damage that was going on that neither my doctor nor I had a clue about. :( So, I agree, these more involved tests would be a great help in preventative care. I just know that in this health care insurance climate, these kinds of tests are not likely going to become routine for men and women at certain ages. Look how long it's taken for mammographies to become authorized, and still many women do not get them because they are either not covered by insurance, they are covered but can't afford the co-pay for one, not in the authorized "age bracket"even if breast cancer runs in their family, or something else. :O
So, I read articles like this with a "grain of salt," so to speak. Because I know some of the realities of insurance coverage and I know many people are not covered at all right now. And despite so-called reforms legislated, with the addition of thousands more to be covered in the future, the likelihood of insurance companies being willing to cover and pay for more involved testing, even though preventative, is not very good. Call me cynical, but if the insurance companies are going to be in charge as they have been, they aren't going to want to have more patients getting more expensive testing. And patients aren't deep pockets with lots of money to shell out, either. :\\