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!

  • Today@lemmy.world
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    124
    ·
    2 years ago

    Do you snore? Get a sleep study and a CPAP - thats pricy! Need a colonoscopy? Gel shots in your knees? Any family histories that would warrant testing for cancer markers?

  • sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    82
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    1
    ·
    Aquileo | edit-2
    2 years ago

    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.

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works
        Aquileo | link
        Aquileo | fedilink
        English
        Aquileo | arrow-up
        2
        ·
        Aquileo | edit-2
        2 years ago

        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 correction

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          There 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.

        • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

          • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
            Aquileo | link
            Aquileo | fedilink
            Aquileo | arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            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.

    • Gerudo@lemm.ee
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • Cadeillac@lemmy.world
        Aquileo | link
        Aquileo | fedilink
        English
        Aquileo | arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        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

      • norimee@lemmy.world
        Aquileo | link
        Aquileo | fedilink
        Aquileo | arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        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?

        • Zorcron@lemmy.zip
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          English
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.”

  • norimee@lemmy.world
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    76
    ·
    2 years ago

    Do every test available for prevention and prophylaxis.
    Get your general practitioner to do a full health check, ECG, EEG, cardiac ultrasound, a full blood panel, bloodpressure, pulmonary function, skin cancer prevention ect.
    Schedule a gastroscopy and colonoscopy.
    Check in with an urologist to get your prostate and urinary tract checked.
    If you can, get a full body scan. Either PET or MRI.

    Nearly every serious disease or health issue is easier prevented or treated when caught before it casues real issues.
    Every cancer there is, has a better outcome and is easier treated when found early. Most of them are silent until very late in the game.

    This is something I would recommend to anyone: Take advantage of every preventative messure or examination that is available to you!
    There is no illness that you can detect too early.

    • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.worksOP
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      7
      ·
      Aquileo | edit-2
      2 years ago

      The kicker is that I just moved here and don’t have a PCP (primary care physician) yet. AND my company is switching health plans next year, so I basically need to find someone who takes BOTH health plans.

    • K[r]ukenberg@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      9
      Aquileo | arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Omfg, don’t get a PET-scan ‘just because’. You would literally have to be injected with radioactive particles. The other stuff, while not necessary, will atleast not kill you faster.

      Last paragraph is also massively oversimplified. Getting a ‘you have cancer’-speech and treatment for a superslow growing prostatecancer will fuck with your mind and body more than the cancer itself. That’s why most health care systems advise against general PSA screening.

      • bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
        Aquileo | link
        Aquileo | fedilink
        English
        Aquileo | arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Just to provide some data on the radiation dose. It’s everyone’s own decision whether a ‘willy-nilly’ PET scan is worth it.

        From the English Wikipedia:

        FDG, which is now the standard radiotracer used for PET neuroimaging and cancer patient management, has an effective radiation dose of 14 mSv.

        The amount of radiation in FDG is similar to the effective dose of spending one year in the American city of Denver, Colorado (12.4 mSv/year). […T]he whole body occupational dose limit for nuclear energy workers in the US is 50 mSv/year.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography#Safety

        From the German Wikipedia:

        Es ist bei einer Strahlendosis von 1 Sievert (Sv), der 100 Menschen ausgesetzt sind, mit 5 Todesfällen durch Strahlenkrebs zu rechnen […]. Man müsste also 100.000 PET-Untersuchungen durchführen, um 35 Todesfälle an Strahlenkrebs (nach einer mittleren Latenzzeit von etwa 15 Jahren für Leukämie und etwa 40 Jahren für solide Tumoren) zu verursachen, das heißt etwa eine auf 3000 Untersuchungen

        If 100 people received a radiation dose of 1 Sievert (Sv), one would expect 5 deaths due to radiation-induced cancer […]. One would need 100,000 PET scans in order to cause 35 cancer deaths (after a median wait duration of 15 years for leucemia and 40 years for solid tumors), which is about 1 in 3000 scans.

        https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronen-Emissions-Tomographie#Strahlenexposition

  • fireweed@lemmy.world
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 years ago

    To your “edit” point: Don’t take a handful of downvotes personally; it’s pretty easy to do accidentally on mobile so they may have been unintentional

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 years ago

      To add to that downvotes have no serious negative effect on this platform

      In reddit as soon as a few people downloaded you, you disappeared

      Here people can brigade you and unless you’re reading top, who cares, your stuff still gets seen.

    • mystic-macaroni@lemmy.ml
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      18
      Aquileo | arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Some people also use downvotes as way to say they dislike something. Unlikely, but some people might be down voting to indicate they don’t like the insurance industry.

    • pishadoot@sh.itjust.works
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      5
      Aquileo | arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      I downvote anyone that whines about or asks why they’re getting downvotes. Otherwise I don’t up/downvote anything at all (except that guy that is posting triangles for upvotes)

      Seriously, who cares?

  • pezhore@lemmy.ml
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    35
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Do you have any persistent pain or discomfort when doing things? Get that checked out.

    Another +1 for colonoscopy.

    Also if there’s a family history of anything nasty, see if there’s a test for it my maybe? (E.g. heart attacks, get blood work done for cholesterol).

    Get a full physical including blood work.

    • tburkhol@lemmy.world
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 years ago

      Fun fact: for people over 45, colonoscopy screening for cancer is always free. If your insurance tries to make you pay for it, report them to your state insurance commissioner or the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. ACA made a lot of preventative medicine & screenings free.

        • tburkhol@lemmy.world
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yeah, it’s the screening that’s free. If that turns something up, then it transitions to “care.”

          I’ve had the same experience with “wellness” check-ups: if I mention some complaint to the doc during the visit, it suddenly becomes “visit with complaint” and costs me $120.

  • Wojwo@lemmy.ml
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 years ago

    Similar boat. Getting my snoring looked into. Got a sleep study done and now I’m having an ent do a scoping to see what’s actually vibrating and what can be done.

      • RoquetteQueen@sh.itjust.works
        Aquileo | link
        Aquileo | fedilink
        Aquileo | arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 years ago

        Wait, what? You guys are paying all that for insurance and it doesn’t always include dental? Like the main reason I wanted to be on health insurance here in Canada was for dental and prescriptions. I’ve been on some of the crappiest insurance plans here and they all include dental.

        • COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          Dental and vision are never included in US health insurance and operate on a totally different confusing insurance framework. They’re only available through separate plans and have their own deductables and terms. But unlike health insurance the premiums are generally orders of magnitude lower for both vision and dental.

          The problem I’ve had is that the maximum benefit is typically in the range of $2k-$3k/yr for dental which is quickly hit if you have any oral surgery needs. Unlike with healthcare I don’t feel ripped off when paying for dental/vision since the few hundred dollars per year covers preventative care visits too.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          Aquileo | link
          Aquileo | fedilink
          Aquileo | arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Man I live in a country with socialized healthcare and we don’t get dental either. Or vision.

          There are private insurance providers who offer both. But they ONLY offer services to employers and I’ve never had a company offer such a benefit. Because you don’t need luxury bones to work and any employer who makes you work with a screen is already forced to cover up to some sum every year or every few years (I don’t remember) spent on glasses. And there’s little point in all the other coverage because it’s already free.

          I’m this close to starting my own company so I could offer myself dental…

  • ResoluteCatnap@lemmy.ml
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    25
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    1
    ·
    Aquileo | edit-2
    2 years ago

    My health insurance denied covering my vasectomy so i put it off. Later that year i was in an accident and hit my max out of pocket pretty quick. I called up my doctor and had them resubmit the preauthorization. got it covered at 100%

    I’m still pretty pissed that sterilization for women is covered at 100% under my plan but not for men. (It should be both 100% imo)

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      It goes the opposite way for wanting to reproduce, too. That is, myself and my wife decided we would try to start a family, and she’s apparently fine, but something isn’t working on my side of things. (Her doc even said “Don’t worry about it, men tend to be an easy fix.”)

      There’s a million programs and special coverages and stuff for women’s fertility, but all I asked is “Hey can we just diagnose what’s wrong with me? I don’t want super-swimmer-syrum or something I just wanna know.”

      They refuse to consider it urology or any kind of “men’s health”, and keep wanting to rule as “fertility treatment” which conveniently isn’t covered.

      Men’s reproductive rights aren’t even on the radar.