Regular health checks can help detect potential health issues early on and enable timely medical intervention. However, when these checkups are poorly performed or yield inaccurate results, or when medical conditions are exaggerated to upsell additional examination items, consumers may not only waste their money and time, but also experience unnecessary anxiety and stress. The Consumer Council has often received complaints involving various issues, such as inaccurate gynaecological tests due to staff’s misadvice that the tests could be performed any time even during menstruation; inconsistent breast ultrasound results from 2 centres raising concerns about report accuracy; and staff suspected of exaggerating health conditions to upsell extra test items, and rejecting the complainant’s cancellation request afterwards.
The Council urges the industry to bear in mind that medical examinations are professional services that must adhere to high ethical and professional standards, with an obligation to provide consumers with clear and accurate test results and analyses. Exploiting inaccurate results and diagnoses, or exaggerating issues to boost sales is highly questionable. The industry is urged to reform immediately to ensure strict monitoring of staff conduct and business practices. As professional service providers, their actions must always be guided by medical ethics, prioritising the health and well-being of consumers, while never pushing services and products unnecessarily.
Case 1: Blood Test During Menstruation Led to Inaccurate Results
Scare Tactics Used to Upsell Additional Services
The complainant intended to purchase an ovarian examination plan from Health Check Centre A for $980. The plan included the Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH) test, which is regarded as an indicator of ovarian function, and the CA125 blood test for ovarian cancer markers. Before making the purchase, she specifically inquired whether she should avoid her menstrual period for the test. The staff assured her that it was not necessary, so she scheduled the tests during her menstruation. Upon reviewing her report, the staff pointed out that her AMH level was only about one-third of the normal range for her age, and that her CA125 level was significantly higher than normal. Therefore, the staff recommended her to perform immediate additional testing for a more thorough checkup, warning that she could face future health risks if she did not proceed. Due to the staff’s poor attitude and suspected scaremongering, the complainant chose not to purchase any additional tests on that day. Instead, she immediately arranged to consult her family doctor, who informed her that such test should not be conducted during menstruation, as this could lead to elevated results. The family doctor also pointed out that the centre had used an incorrectly high AMH reference level for her age, and that her AMH level was actually normal. Questioning the professionalism and prudence of Health Check Centre A, the complainant filed a complaint with the Council and requested a refund.
In their response to the Council, Health Check Centre A stated that they had initiated an internal investigation, but did not provide any explanations regarding their staff’s advice that tests could be performed during menstruation or their AMH reference level. Ultimately, both parties agreed to a refund, thereby resolving the case.
Case 2: Inconsistent Breast Ultrasound Results from 2 Centres Raised Concerns About Report Accuracy
The complainant spent $7,800 on gynaecological examination services at Health Check Centre B, which included multiple tests such as a breast ultrasound and cancer marker screenings for women. As the ultrasound report revealed 8 hypoechoic nodules, the largest measuring 5.7cm in diameter, the staff recommended the complainant to undergo further testing. To ensure accuracy, the complainant decided to conduct a second breast ultrasound at another health check centre. The subsequent report, however, showed only 3 similar nodules, with the largest measuring 3.4cm in diameter. Noting the significant discrepancy between the 2 reports, the complainant suspected that Health Check Centre B might have exploited consumers’ health concerns to sell additional test items. Consequently, she sought assistance from the Council and requested a refund.
Health Check Centre B denied any errors or fraudulent intent in their test report, asserting that all their healthcare practitioners were government-registered professionals. They further explained that the disparate results could be due to various factors, such as the complainant’s body condition at different times (e.g. different phases in a menstrual cycle), and the angle at which the ultrasound probe was applied. After the Council’s conciliation, Health Check Centre B eventually met the complainant’s request for a refund. The case was thus resolved.
Case 3: Staff Misinformed Complainant About Possible Liver Cancer to Upsell Tests
The complainant received a basic check-up worth $500 at Health Check Centre C, which included a liver ultrasound. Following the scan, he was informed that he had 2 liver cysts (also known as hepatic cysts) and was advised to undergo further cancer marker tests. As he hesitated, the staff reassured him that the results would be consistent regardless of where the tests were conducted, and offered him a 50% discount for being over 60 years old. Consumed by anxiety and panic, the complainant paid $800 on the spot for a liver cancer test. Soon afterwards, he consulted a doctor and learned that liver cysts, which are fluid-filled lesions, typically only require regular monitoring and are rarely cancerous. Opining that the staff of Health Check Centre C had intentionally misled him, he sought to cancel the additionally purchased cancer test. However, the Centre refused his request, stating that the blood samples had already been sent to the laboratory. The complainant thus lodged a complaint with the Council.
Health Check Centre C maintained that they had not pressured the complainant into undergoing any tests, and suggested that it was due to possible miscommunication. Following further conciliation by the Council, the centre agreed to issue a refund, thereby resolving the case.
The primary purpose of routine health checks is to detect potential health issues at an early stage and address them promptly. Inaccurate examination reports not only compromise consumers’ rights to be informed about their health condition, but can also postpone necessary medical intervention, consequently impacting their health. When selecting a health check plan, consumers can consider the following advice:
- Before undergoing any health check, it is recommended to consult with a doctor for an informed evaluation and guidance on selecting the appropriate tests for specific needs. This can prevent unnecessary or invasive testing procedures, saving both time and money, while also reducing unwarranted distress;
- When selecting checkup items, make sure to note whether the tests would be conducted by a doctor or a healthcare practitioner. After purchase, retain all receipts and examination reports as evidence for any future claims;
- Test results may occasionally yield “false positives” or “false negatives”. Therefore, it is important to seek a doctor’s interpretation of health check or laboratory reports, so as to incorporate clinical diagnosis and comprehensive evaluation to recommend the appropriate follow-up, treatment or referral.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/580-body-check
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.