TL;DR
A MedPage Today opinion article by primary care physician Dr. Pelzman describes patients asking their regular doctors to interpret extensive test panels ordered through labs, online services and wellness clinics. The account raises concerns about results without a clear follow-up plan, added work for primary care teams and the risk of findings that prompt further questions.
Primary care physician Dr. Pelzman says he is increasingly receiving requests to interpret test results ordered through stand-alone labs, online services and wellness clinics, according to an opinion article in MedPage Today. The account highlights a follow-up gap: patients may receive extensive results without guidance from the service that ordered them, then turn to a primary care doctor who did not select the tests.
Pelzman says patients have brought results on topics including hormones, fatigue, memory and sleep. One patient sent him a 14-page laboratory report with a note advising them to speak with their primary care physician about the findings and possible next steps. In other cases, he writes, patients told him the ordering service had directed them to ask their regular doctor, or that they had not spoken to a doctor at all.
The physician says some panels include tests he does not recognize or would not typically order for a patient. He also describes uncertainty about what certain results measure and how to act on them. The report does not identify the tests, providers or patients involved, and it does not offer an independent review of the testing services. Its account is one physician’s experience, not a measured study of how common the practice is.
Pelzman says the general advice attached to some results—such as eating well, sleeping enough, exercising and maintaining social connections—can resemble guidance primary care doctors already give. He contrasts that with expensive supplements he says may be marketed alongside testing, whose clinical value he questions. The source does not evaluate particular products or establish whether any patient was harmed.
The Work Behind Every Result
A test result can lead to more than a number in a portal. A clinician may need to establish why the test was ordered, assess whether the finding fits the patient’s symptoms and history, explain its limits, and decide whether any follow-up is appropriate. Pelzman’s concern is that this work can arrive at a primary care visit without the clinician having ordered the tests or having the context supplied by the testing service.
That matters to patients because a flagged result may raise questions without making clear what it means for their health. It matters to primary care teams because interpreting a large set of unfamiliar results takes time, while routine appointments are already used to address multiple concerns. Pelzman argues that this labor should be recognized and compensated. His commentary does not quantify the added time or its cost, but it describes a practical pressure point: testing can create follow-up needs that someone must address.
The piece also points to a broader issue in care coordination. When testing and interpretation happen in separate settings, patients may be left to carry results between providers. The article does not show how often that happens or whether particular services routinely provide follow-up. It does, however, make clear that in the cases Pelzman describes, patients expected their regular doctor to take responsibility for explaining results and discussing next steps.
How Results Reach Primary Care
Pelzman places the requests in a recent shift in how patients can access tests. He says that over the past year or two, patients have found more ways to get testing through stand-up laboratories, online portals, walk-in clinics and longevity or wellness practices. Some services, he writes, present patients with a menu of tests while offering limited contact with a clinician or no continuing relationship.
The article links this experience to a longstanding question in primary care: when are routine tests useful? Pelzman recalls being taught not to order a test unless the clinician and patient are prepared to consider the result and what to do with it. He also recalls the statistical point that ordering many tests makes it more likely that at least one result will fall outside a reference range. That observation is a general principle in his commentary, not a finding about the unnamed patient’s 14-page report.
He notes that patients may expect blood tests during routine visits even when a doctor sees no new reason to order them. In his account, expectations can come from patients themselves or family members. This tension—between testing patients expect and testing a clinician considers useful—forms part of the commentary’s setting, alongside short appointment times and the need to address several health concerns in one visit.
“So, Dr. Pelzman, what should I do about all these test results?”
— Dr. Pelzman, describing a patient message
What the Account Cannot Establish
The source is an opinion article, and the supplied material does not include a date, patient records or data showing how widespread these requests are. It does not name the testing companies or clinics, identify the panels involved, or describe the clinical outcomes for the patients. The frequency of the practice and the share of results that require follow-up therefore remain unclear from this report.
It is also not clear what the 14-page report contained, whether its findings were clinically significant, or what care the patient ultimately received. Pelzman’s account does not establish that broad testing itself caused harm, nor does it assess the accuracy or usefulness of a specific test. Questions about the value of individual tests and supplements require evidence about the products and patients involved, which the article does not provide.
Who Will Interpret the Results?
Pelzman calls for a way to provide patients with the care they need without relying on large numbers of tests whose results no one is prepared to explain. He also argues that primary care doctors should be compensated for the time and intellectual work involved when patients ask them to interpret outside results. The article does not set out a policy proposal, a payment model or a timeline for changes.
For patients described in the piece, the immediate next step is a conversation with a clinician who can review results alongside their medical history and explain what, if anything, needs follow-up. Pelzman’s broader point is that the service ordering a test should be prepared to explain its purpose and results. Whether testing providers or health systems will change how they arrange that follow-up is not specified in the report.
Key Questions
What issue does Dr. Pelzman describe?
He says patients increasingly bring him results from tests ordered through outside labs, online services and wellness clinics, sometimes without an explanation from the ordering service.
Does the article show that broad testing harms patients?
No. It describes one physician’s experience and concerns. The supplied account does not document patient harm or evaluate specific tests.
What was in the 14-page report?
The article does not identify the tests or findings in the report. It says only that a patient sent it to Pelzman and was told to ask their primary care doctor about the results and next steps.
What does Pelzman say should happen after testing?
He argues that someone should be prepared to interpret results and explain what comes next. He says the ordering service should be ready to discuss the tests it requested.
Source: rss
