Florian-Klauer@Unsplash.com. // This is Addendum; series of additional sections for the parent manuscript Nutritional Humility™. These are intentionally kept separate from the parent manuscript to help maintain readability; without submitting north towards 500+ page count.
Ordering blood panel test is for some, an interrogation. A necessary grind, before the reward(s) for both scientific privacy and liberty. I’ve not been able to give my thoughts on this for many years due to overlapping priorities in and outside of this concept initiative. No, I am not showered with “lines of credits”. Nor am I affiliated with any of these services.
YMMV. Please comment your thoughts below.
(Copy & Paste; writing perspective switch to the manuscript’s third person)
Panel tests sans GP referrals ~ your options.
General checkups (metabolic, liver and/or kidney health) seems reasonably priced from both provider/s. However they are not exactly a 1:1 replica. Advanced lipids (APO differentiations) or detailed thyroid panels for instance ~ may differ in terms of length and detail. To both preserve and respect intellectual property, this is NOT a guide presenting minute differences of the two in matrix chart/s or the like. Readers instead are encouraged to assess these parameters individually, by comparing their services parameters at their own end before all informed decisions.
For more comprehensive and detailed request/s, I-medical may be the more preferred route. Individuals are free to select any additional tests on top of existing pre-defined “panels”; specifically labelled as “A-Z” categories. These categories unfolds very specific testing opportunities. Specific enzymes. Steroid hormones, vitamin, and various lipid panels. That also includes options such as VLDL particle sizing determinations and analysis, which I-screen seemingly lacked. However, beware these specific tests are highly prestigious. Thus prompting elaborate procedures costing at least AUD$150 (or more).
It is also noteworthy that many collection agencies, for some undisclosed reason ~ only resort to “higher-than / >” or “lower-then / <” symbolic reporting for the sake of simplified interpretation. For instance, kidney function (eGFR) may only be presented as “>90 ml/minute” as cut off reference range. Hence, unfortunately there is no knowing as to how high their actual readings are beyond “90”. It could be 100 or vaguely interpreted as either “higher than 90” or to “infinity”.
As a general disclaimer, neither This Author (AW™) or This Book confides as legally abiding suggestions. By no means This Author’s “opinion” are “final”. Any services rendered by these third party provider(s) may change their terms, or operation of conducts at any stage in the unforeseen future.
Having thus overseen the above disclaimers, six (6) overall food for thoughts are hereby presented.
Which service provider is the more affordable? How “judgmental” are these providers?
This Author (AW™) may only speak for from his own N=1 enquiry. Thus a subjectively one at that only as much as his finances allow; amidst prolonged sociological / structural impositions.
If cost is the outmost concern, I-screen is perhaps potentially the more affordable. They appear to be more frequently affiliated with intermittent discount offering. Groupon®, Cudo®, to name a few. Further, I-Screen appears to be well-designed, with both user-centric overall experience and branding delivered in mind.
Please note, even though these providers casually use the terms “non-judgmental”, “Confidential” and/or “private” ~ all results still remains to be screened by an “APHRA” accredited practitioner/s.
In the case for I-Screen, individuals are provided with a questionnaire panel on which these are used for the practitioner to “recommend next steps” or for “for more comprehensive feedback“.
…That unfortunately may proves concerning. Especially for those wishing outmost unbiased, free-of-judgment medical enquiry. I-Medical on the other hand, does not seemingly impose the above clause.
Suffice to say, I-Medical provides only very brief email messaging with pathology request forms immediately downloadable. Once results are shared – little to no indicative sentiments on the letterhead as provided. This is generally the norm of received communications. Unless of course if the results needed much warranted, or obvious ~ attention.
Nevertheless, both providers are excellent in both serviceship and customer courtesy.
What / which Pathology panel agencies are “accepted”?
At the time of this writing (May 2020) I-Screen accepts a total of four(4) Pathology collector agencies (NOTE: these may yet be state-specific):
- QML and TML
- Western Diagnostic
- Laverty and;
- Australian Clinical Labs (NSW,VIC, SA, WA & NT)
- Medlab (State/s Unspecified)
- Western Diagnostic (State/s Unspecified)
- QML (QLD, North NSW)
- Laverty (NSW, ACT)
- TML (Tasmania)
How long does it take for results to arrive?
This Author (AW™) finds this question impossible to answer. Since both collection, and interpretation procedures vary between collection agencies. Certainly This Author CANNOT speak on behalf of these institutions. However it is generally safe to assume that the more elaborate, “advanced”, or “detailed” panels ~ the longer time needed for reporting and interpretation. These are usually reflected by the marked increase of asking cost.
The fastest response This Author witnessed (by either I-Screen or I-Medical) was one (1) full day turn around for a result to be submitted. Unexpectedly; reporting turn-around feedback, may also falls on a weekend. This experience is noted only with I-Medical.
I-Screen (owing once again to User-centric experience) appears to be more visually courteous. As promptly expected by their Dashboard feature, users will witness graphical updates, ranging from (start to finish):
- “Awaiting Doctor”. and;
- “Finished / View Results”
What else should I be aware of when ordering these tests?
It is essential to provide two (2) printed evidences on hand, on the day of collection:
- The original referral form.
- Print / evidence of email receipt of purchase of panel.
Further, This Author (AW™) highly recommend readers to (brace upon) verbal explanation for clarity. As many are unfamiliar with these private panel service providers. Individuals are no doubt going to be confronted with questions such as:
- “Why do you not see your doctor first?”
- “Who will be paying for this?”
- “Have you paid for this? If so, what receipt or evidence do you have?”
- “Who are these private providers? What credentials do they have?”
This Author (AW™) nonetheless provides the following series of responses, for readers to consider re-adapting:
- “As law-abiding citizen under free speech, it is my right to seek alternative services that does not require additional prejudice impositions. My own health is my own legal right to exercise my privacy and thus curiosity to self-enquire; without fear of medical or paternalistic scrutiny”.
- “It is becoming clear that healthcare costs are rising. This includes the need for GP pathology referral/s. In addition, they at times refuse even the most conventional requests. Consequently ~ frowning patients with authoritarian condescends. Therefore, I retain the right to pursue alternative panel providers bypassing such barriers; to allow my own health self-enquiry. Without medical prejudice and paternalistic scrutiny.”
- “The panel provider is the firm that I have paid all my financial dues for such a private test request.”
- “Yes, I have evidence of payment made in full. Please see the receipt.” <present printed evidence of payment / email confirmation>. “Please also witness the DOCTOR CODES and BILLING CODES on the referral form” <point and highlight by hand>.
- “These private providers are run by various pathologists with clearances to NATA accredited laboratories.” “I am happy for you to please verbally confirm with your supervisors. Please once again witness the DOCTOR CODES and/or BILLING CODES as clearly shown on the referral form.” <point and highlight by hand>.
I have witnessed that panel collectors are fussy when it comes to length and duration of fasting. Is this true?
It appears that yes, depending on the nurse / personnel on duty ~ some agencies may downright refuse collections whose patients have undergone longer than 12 hours of fasting. Conventional / institutionalised parameters generally discourages fasting hours beyond 12 hours.
When lightly questioned with “why” ~ the best response This Author (AW™) from memory is as seemingly mundane as “because you would likely been out of blood sugar by then”.
Unfortunately, the very best that pragmatism allow is to simply be honest, frank and upfront. This however, requires readers to also pre-emptively prepare for a clarified elaboration on why the need for extended fasting duration. Hence, provide clarity with them to assure that it is all in the interest of food / resources preservation, frugality and also ~ general health affirmations.
Generally, (they) will submit that you, as discerning readers ~ are the willingly outspoken and forthcoming citizens ~ in the need for self-enquiry.
If refusal still remains persistent, politely thank them nevertheless and immediately look elsewhere. Make clear note on the day, time, the name of the panel collector, the agency and nurse. Vow not to associate with them again.
What happens during COVID-19 pandemic?
As if high living costs is not dire enough ~ recent tensions no doubt have compounded further difficulties. For both accommodating and arranging ~ standard panel tests outside of “priority” COVID-19 testing.
As of this addendum writing amidst overlapping obligations (May-July 2020), many collection agencies refuse to take walk-in visitations. Some only accepts COVID-19 priority testing. Some have permanently closed (without prior notice). Some may even refuse conventional panels altogether.
At the very least many agencies have responsibly plastered bold notices / posters in front of their premises at notifying any changes for collection procedures. This Author (AW™) particularly noted from experience ~ that Western Diagnostics are amongst the most affected by these changes and thus ~ likely presents the most challenges to conventional panel requests.
Readers would be thus wise to firstly enquire direct with the pathology branch nearest to them. See how these arrangements may differ during these pandemic management.
For those who can (regularly) afford, blood tests are an insightful haven. Given the costly healthcare receptions both nation (and world)-wide, it becomes more imperative for individuals than ever to take initiatives for scientific self-enquiry. As far away from persistently condescending, medical paternalism.
I-Screen may favour those who still wish the general comfort of user experience and branding, also with budget-consciousness in mind. If for as long as they too are comfortably at risk to require surrendering more medical history information. I-Medical on the other hand is more industrial, straight-to-the-point request. I-Medical also potentially provide more highly specific & robust A-Z choice of testing. However beware that these prompt much more costly requirements.
The choice now remains open to all readers.
As a prominent disclaimer, This Author (AW™) is not and never, in anyway shape or form – affiliated with the above service provider(s) nor the collection agencies. This Addendum serves only as pragmatic food for thoughts for hopeful assistance towards clarified decision making; amidst current paternalistic and authoritarian scientific enquiries.