At-home health tests are here. But they aren't always the best option.
Here's what doctors say you can test for at home, and when you should make the trek to your physician's office.
What kinds of at-home tests are available?
There are two kinds at 'at-home tests.'
In one type, the patient collects the sample and sends it off to a lab; the new cervical cancer test is like this.
Advertisement
The other gives an instant result — think COVID-19 and pregnancy tests.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
What are the benefits of at-home tests?
HIV home-testing kits can improve rates of diagnosing sexually transmitted infections in rural communities and help people who are nervous about going to the doctor to seek a sensitive test, said Dr. Joseph Cherabie, an infectious diseases specialist in St. Louis.
'You really want to get people to care as quickly as possible, but some people could be very anxious about that results as well,' Cherabie said. 'And they have very negative reactions.'
Labs are required to report a positive HIV test, instead of putting the onus on the patient who took the test, Cherabie said, and and, often, the patient is matched up with HIV support services.
Advertisement
'If you are part of a sexual and gender minority community, going to a doctor's office can be full of a lot of historical trauma, and you may prefer to just do testing at home without anyone judging you or asking you invasive questions about your sex life,' Cherabie said.
The new cervical cancer test — which tests for strains of human papillomavirus, or HPV — involves a testing swab that's like a tampon, said Dr. Susan Modesitt, a gynecologic oncologist at Emory University in Atlanta.
It is not, Modesitt said, a replacement for a Pap smear, the exam in which a metal speculum is inserted in the vagina to scrape cervix cells. A doctor's visit also involves a pelvic exam, a chance to talk about abnormal bleeding — a sign of endometrial cancer — and other symptoms and issues, like menopause or STIs.
'There are so many other reasons to see your doctor and get an exam outside of a cervical cancer screening,' she said.
This photo provided by Teal Health in May 2025 shows the company's Teal Wand self-collection device for at-home cervical cancer screening.
Nicole Morrison/Associated Press
I live in a rural area — can I take an at-home test?
Some at-home tests can replace a trip to the doctor's office. That's especially true in rural areas, where it can be difficult to get a colonoscopy.
'The colonoscopy requires a pre-op, and you have to drive maybe 70 miles for it,' said Dr. Steven Furr, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians who practices in rural Alabama. 'You get anesthesia. It's actually almost like a surgical procedure in many ways.
'So, for a lot of people, that's pretty arduous. That's where an at-home test can come in handy.'
But, Furr said, if your test reveals issues, you need to go to your doctor. Plus, patients should always discuss test results with their physician instead of interpreting them on their own, he said.
Advertisement
Who shouldn't do at-home tests?
If you have symptoms of what you're testing for, go to the doctor.
At-home colon cancer tests aren't the right option for people with a history of colon cancer or high-risk conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease, said Dr. Zachariah Foda, a gastroenterologist at Johns Hopkins. He added that they're also not recommended for people who are having GI symptoms.
While there are tests for many things — running anywhere from $15 to $400, depending on what is being evaluated — Furr said it's essential to make sure that your test is FDA-approved so you can better trust the results.
'Anytime we get people involved in their own health care and help them understand what's going on, I think that's a good thing and it gives us a chance to talk,' he said. 'Any kind of screening is better than no screening.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
43 minutes ago
- CNN
HHS reinstates more than 450 CDC employees fired in April reorganization
Federal agencies Health care policyFacebookTweetLink Follow The US Department of Health and Human Services is reinstating more than 450 employees at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who were fired as part of a massive reorganization in April, including workers focused on HIV, lead exposure and workplace safety. More than 200 employees had their firings rescinded at the CDC's National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and Tuberculosis Prevention, along with 158 at the National Center for Environmental Health, an HHS spokesperson confirmed. Another 71 were brought back in the Office of the Director and two dozen more at the Global Health Center. The reinstatements represent almost 20% of the 2,400 CDC employees who HHS said it was dismissing in a mass Reduction in Force, or RIF, in April. The cuts also affected employees across the US Food and Drug Administration, the US National Institutes of Health and the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but an HHS spokesperson said Wednesday's reinstatements applied only to employees at the CDC. 'Under Secretary Kennedy's leadership, the nation's critical public health functions remain intact and effective,' HHS Director of Communications Andrew Nixon said in a statement. 'The Trump Administration is committed to protecting essential services – whether it's supporting coal miners and firefighters through NIOSH, safeguarding public health through lead prevention, or researching and tracking the most prevalent communicable diseases. 'HHS is streamlining operations without compromising mission-critical work,' he continued. 'Enhancing the health and well-being of all Americans remains our top priority.' The cuts had wiped out the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance Branch as it was in the midst of helping the city of Milwaukee address a lead exposure crisis in its public schools. The firings meant the CDC had to deny a request from the city for specialists to help.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
HHS reinstates more than 450 CDC employees fired in April reorganization
Federal agencies Health care policyFacebookTweetLink Follow The US Department of Health and Human Services is reinstating more than 450 employees at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who were fired as part of a massive reorganization in April, including workers focused on HIV, lead exposure and workplace safety. More than 200 employees had their firings rescinded at the CDC's National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and Tuberculosis Prevention, along with 158 at the National Center for Environmental Health, an HHS spokesperson confirmed. Another 71 were brought back in the Office of the Director and two dozen more at the Global Health Center. The reinstatements represent almost 20% of the 2,400 CDC employees who HHS said it was dismissing in a mass Reduction in Force, or RIF, in April. The cuts also affected employees across the US Food and Drug Administration, the US National Institutes of Health and the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but an HHS spokesperson said Wednesday's reinstatements applied only to employees at the CDC. 'Under Secretary Kennedy's leadership, the nation's critical public health functions remain intact and effective,' HHS Director of Communications Andrew Nixon said in a statement. 'The Trump Administration is committed to protecting essential services – whether it's supporting coal miners and firefighters through NIOSH, safeguarding public health through lead prevention, or researching and tracking the most prevalent communicable diseases. 'HHS is streamlining operations without compromising mission-critical work,' he continued. 'Enhancing the health and well-being of all Americans remains our top priority.' The cuts had wiped out the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance Branch as it was in the midst of helping the city of Milwaukee address a lead exposure crisis in its public schools. The firings meant the CDC had to deny a request from the city for specialists to help.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
History Shows the Danger of Trump's Health Policies
U.S. President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attend an event in the East Room of the White House on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit - Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images On May 11, 2023, President Joseph Biden ended the COVID-19 public health emergency, calling an finish to the pandemic. By the end of 2023, COVID-19 claimed the lives of over 20 million people around the world. But through international cooperation and evidence-based science, vaccines were developed and the world moved on. Indeed, perhaps the biggest success of the period was the quick production of a COVID-19 vaccine. The research behind the mRNA vaccine had been ongoing since the 1970s, but the emergency of the pandemic and international sharing of knowledge helped bring the vaccine to fruition. Today, the COVID-19 vaccine has been credited with saving 2.4 million lives around the world. But now, the U.S. is choosing competition over cooperation. With President Donald Trump's day one executive order to leave the World Health Organization (WHO)—blaming their COVID-19 response—and the shuttering of USAID, the country is taking steps towards further dividing health efforts across the globe. Here in the U.S., a sudden end to $11.4 billion of covid-related grants is stifling national pandemic preparedness efforts on the local and state levels. And most recently, Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. purged experts from the CDC Advisory Committee, putting lives at risk. Historical lessons demonstrate the need for global health infrastructure that works together, shares knowledge, and remembers that pathogens do not stop at borders. White House's Pandemic Office, Busy With Bird Flu, May Shrink Under Trump One of the greatest global health achievements of all time—smallpox eradication—provides a perfect example of what can be done with independent scientific research and international cooperation. During the Cold War between the U.S. and USSR, decades of tension brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Yet, incredibly, the nations managed to find common ground to support the efforts of smallpox eradication. Indeed, they understood the strategic benefits that came from letting public health practitioners and scientists work outside of political divides. The WHO was founded after World War II in 1948. Its formation marked a move from international health, that focused on nations, to global health, that would serve humanity first. The WHO's first eradication effort was the failed, U.S.-backed, Malaria Eradication Program from 1955 to 1969. The Smallpox Eradication Program, with intensive efforts beginning in 1967, provided a chance for redemption for the U.S. and WHO. For the United States, investing in disease eradication and poverty helped to mitigate growing backlash against the Vietnam War. In June of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated, 'I propose to dedicate this year to finding new techniques for making man's knowledge serve man's welfare.' He called for 1965—the same year he ordered ground troops to Vietnam to stop the spread of communism —to be a year of international cooperation that could bypass the politics of the Cold War. Previously, the USSR did not participate in the U.S. and WHO's first, failed global eradication plan for malaria. But upon rejoining the WHO in 1956, it was the Soviets who made the first call and investment into global eradication of smallpox in 1958. The WHO functioning as a mediator was crucial to allowing the USSR and the U.S. to work together. It allowed both nations to avoid giving credit to each other; rather success went to science itself. President Johnson called this 'a turning point' away from 'man against man' towards 'man against nature.' The limited role of politicians in the program proved to be key to its success. Scientists made decisions and worked together—no matter what country they came from—by focusing on disease and vaccination, not international tensions. The Soviet-initiated program was lead by Donald A. Henderson, a U.S. epidemiologist, who worked alongside the Russians until the last case of smallpox occurred in Somalia on October 26, 1977. During the 20th century, smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths. Smallpox was officially declared eradicated by the WHO in October 1980, and is today still the only human disease to achieve this distinction. Less than a year after the declaration of smallpox eradication, the emergence of another pandemic, the HIV/AIDS crisis, reinforced the importance of science-first cooperation over politically-driven decision making. In June 1981, the first cases of a new unknown disease were reported in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. In short order, gay men were stigmatized and blamed in what would become one of the biggest public health disasters of all time. It took years of grassroots science-based activism to move beyond HIV/AIDS victim-blaming and find medical solutions. The Poster Child for AIDS Obscured as Much About the Crisis as He Revealed Too often, governments across the globe placed blame on the gay community for their 'sins' and did not provide needed support, leaving the sick to suffer and die. The pharmaceutical companies profited from the limited medications they had available and did not pursue sufficient development. The FDA process for new drugs was scheduled to take nine years, at a time when life expectancy after receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis was one year. These issues sparked activism, spawning the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) in 1987. ACT UP organizers took science into their own hands and began educating themselves. Members began reading scientific journals religiously, learning the chemistry and epidemiology of drug manufacturing and clinical trials. Members learned how to translate these dense scientific messages to educate the community members on what was—and what was not—being done to help. Because of this work, the FDA changed policies to allow for new treatments to be tested at accelerated rates in times of emergency. ACT UP was able to shift the cultural blame showing that the issue was a result of politics getting in the way of scientific advancements. By 1990, ACT UP influenced the largest federal HIV program to pass Congress, the Ryan White CARE Act. This program was a vital precursor to the 2003 PEPFAR (The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) global initiative. Both of these histories offer a powerful lesson: global health is national health, and national health is local health. With the recent funding cuts from the U.S. government, the future of global health is going in an unknown direction. And yet, the occurrence of pandemics is expected to increase in frequency due to climate change, mass migration, urbanization, and ecosystem destruction. It has been estimated that there is about a 25% chance we will have another COVID-sized pandemic within the next 10 years. No matter how secure the world makes borders, history shows that it can not protect us from disease if we do not have a strong, interconnected public health infrastructure. Luke Jorgensen is a Master of Public Health student at Purdue University where his epidemiology research examines human migration and infectious disease. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. Write to Made by History at madebyhistory@
