Lie about family history, but even colonoscopies are not perfect; I just had somebody in my family die of CRC because...

- They had symptoms and wanted a screening, but their PCP repeatedly denied them a referral for like a year because they were "too young".

- They lied about family history after symptoms got worse and got their referral.

- They got the colonoscopy which came back clean, and then symptoms continued to get worse.

- Finally their doctor gave them a referral for an MRI.

Results were stage 4 CRC. The doctor performing the colonoscopy missed the tumor, which was tucked into the sigmoid (the bend in your colon), where he didn't properly inflate because he wasn't taking it very seriously. It had a thumb-tip sized protrusion inside the colon but had gotten huge on the opposite side of the colon wall. They fought it for 8 years after the diagnosis and over 100 rounds of chemo (!!!), were about to get a new procedure at Yale, in which the doctor told them to think of it in terms of "this really may be a complete cure", but it was canceled because of the Big Beautiful Bill.

If you have symptoms (even if you don't), don't let some fuckass Nurse Practitioner tell you no. They don't know shit and they let their egos get in the way when they have to deal with moderately informed patients advocating for themselves. This was preventable and tge medicap system failed them because both the PCP and the doctor performing the colonoscopy were not paying attention to what they were being presented with and saw only their own expectations.

Also...apparently doctors wanted to lower the screening age to like 35, but insurance companies fought it, so it's at 45.

IANAL, just a CRC survivor and one who had my PCP miss my diagnosis a year before I started treatment. You may have a pretty good malpractice claim.

>Also...apparently doctors wanted to lower the screening age to like 35, but insurance companies fought it, so it's at 45.

On this website, it is frequently opined that because health insurers have a legal minimum medical loss ratio, that health insurers prefer inflated costs so that their medical losses are higher, which means their premiums can be higher, which means their revenue is higher, which means their profit is higher.

I would have thought health insurers would support a lower screening age, especially since it would inflate costs for all insurers so everyone's cut of the now bigger pie gets bigger.