TL;DR
Turn your wind-down time into listening time
- Thousands of audiobooks, podcasts and originals
- Listen on your phone, tablet or Echo — also offline
- Cancel anytime
A MedPage Today opinion by Dr. Pelzman describes patients bringing extensive test results to primary care after tests ordered through labs, online services and wellness clinics. The account highlights a follow-up problem, but it does not provide data showing how common the practice is or whether it has increased across the health system.
Primary care physician Dr. Pelzman says patients are increasingly bringing large panels of test results to their regular doctors after using stand-alone labs, online portals and wellness clinics, sometimes without receiving an explanation from the service that ordered the tests. In a MedPage Today opinion, Pelzman describes the resulting requests as an added interpretive burden for practices already pressed for time; the account is a physician’s experience, not a measured estimate of how widespread the pattern is.
Pelzman recounts receiving portal messages asking what patients should do about results from tests they arranged outside their usual care. In one example, a patient sent a 14-page PDF of laboratory results with a note directing them to ask their primary care physician about the findings and next steps. Pelzman says some patients reported that the testing service had told them to consult their own doctor, while others said they had not spoken with a physician at all.
The tests described covered subjects including hormones, fatigue, memory, inflammation, sexual health and sleep. Pelzman writes that some panels include tests unfamiliar to the physician and results for which the doctor may not know what follow-up is appropriate. The commentary does not identify the specific tests, clinics or patients, and it does not assess any individual result or patient outcome.
Pelzman also says advice accompanying some large test lists has included general recommendations such as sleep, exercise, hydration and social connection. The physician argues that these are often familiar topics in primary care, while interpreting a wide panel can require additional clinical work. The opinion raises the possibility that doctors may need to set aside time and be compensated for reviewing outside results, rather than treating that work as an informal addition to a short appointment.
Who Interprets the Results
The issue described is the gap between obtaining a test and arranging follow-up. A result can prompt questions that require a clinician to consider why the test was ordered, what the finding means for that patient and whether any further action is appropriate. When the ordering service does not provide that explanation, patients may turn to a primary care doctor who did not choose the tests and may not have the context behind them.
That work competes with other care during appointments that Pelzman describes as short and already crowded. The commentary connects extensive outside testing to a broader primary care pressure: patients may arrive with several concerns, while clinicians have limited time to address them and coordinate specialist referrals. It does not quantify added costs or harms, but it highlights how unclear responsibility for follow-up can affect both patients seeking answers and clinicians managing their workload.
For readers, the account points to a practical question to raise before testing: who will explain the results and discuss next steps? Pelzman’s piece is not a clinical guideline and does not establish that any particular test is inappropriate. It describes why a test panel without an identified clinician responsible for follow-up can leave patients unsure where to turn.
The Physician’s Testing Concerns
Pelzman places the current requests against a longstanding debate in primary care about routine testing. The physician recalls being taught to consider whether a test is wanted, whether its result can be acted on and whether the patient wants to receive that information. Pelzman also invokes a basic statistical point: when enough tests are ordered, some results may fall outside a reference range even when there is no clear clinical problem. The commentary gives no figures for how often this occurs in the cases described.
The source distinguishes those experiences from a broader evidence review. Pelzman says patients have found more ways to obtain testing, including stand-alone laboratories, online portals, walk-in clinics and wellness practices. The piece does not include industry data, a survey or a comparison with earlier testing rates. Its description of an increase over the past year or two is therefore the author’s observation, not an independently verified trend.
Pelzman also notes that patients have long expected blood tests during routine visits, even when a doctor sees no new reason to order them. That background helps explain the tension in the opinion: testing can feel reassuring or expected, but the physician argues that each test can create a need to interpret and communicate results. The account focuses on that follow-up work rather than evaluating the merits of specific tests or services.
“Don’t order a test that you don’t want to know the result of, or the patient doesn’t want to know the result of, or you don’t know what to do with the result of it when you get it.”
— Dr. Pelzman, recalling advice from medical school
How Widespread Is This Pattern
The opinion offers no patient count, survey or health-system data showing how often people obtain extensive tests outside their usual care. It also does not name the testing services or provide the panels needed to assess whether the tests were appropriate, what the results meant, or whether patients experienced harm. The author’s observation of more requests over the past year or two should not be read as a population-wide measurement.
It is also unclear how often testing services provide follow-up, what arrangements they offer for interpreting results, or how often a patient’s regular doctor is asked to take over that role. Pelzman’s account does not report how physicians are compensated for reviewing outside panels or whether the practices described have adopted formal policies for handling them.
Follow-Up After Testing
Pelzman’s commentary does not announce a new policy, study or scheduled change. The next step it advocates is clearer responsibility: patients should know who will explain results and what follow-up is available when testing is arranged. The physician also argues that primary care practices should account for the time and clinical judgment required to review extensive results.
Whether testing services or clinics will change their follow-up practices, or whether primary care groups will adopt new processes for outside results, is not reported in the piece. For now, the article’s central question remains how patients can get an understandable explanation and an appropriate plan after testing.
Key Questions
What development does the article describe?
Dr. Pelzman describes patients bringing large test panels from outside services to primary care and asking for interpretation, sometimes after the ordering service directs them to their regular doctor.
Does the article show that this trend is widespread?
No. It is a physician’s firsthand account and gives no survey, patient count or other data to measure how common the practice is.
What is unclear about the test results?
The opinion does not list the specific tests or results, so readers cannot assess their meaning, appropriateness or outcomes. It also does not establish how often the services provide follow-up.
What does Pelzman say should happen after testing?
Pelzman argues that patients should have a clear source for an explanation and next steps, and that clinicians’ time reviewing extensive results should be recognized.
Source: rss
Columbus Day / Indigenous Peoples' Day Picks
long weekend sales
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
