9 in 10 Americans Have Put Off Health Checkups and Screenings That Could Help Save Their Lives
Originally published on Aflac Newsroom
COLUMBUS, Ga., April 23, 2025 /3BL/ — April is National Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Month, a time to emphasize the importance of preventive health care and the value of early detection. Key findings from the third annual Wellness Matters Survey1 released by Aflac, the leading provider of supplemental health insurance in the U.S.,2 reveal a vast majority of Americans (90%) put off getting a checkup or recommended screening that could help identify and treat serious illness early. The survey uncovers what may be keeping many, particularly younger Americans, from going to the doctor: fear of bad news, personal embarrassment, inconvenience, logistical barriers and distrust or dislike of doctors.
Health care on holdAcross all generations, many Americans may put their health care on hold because going to the doctor is not easy — both logistically and emotionally. The survey uncovered an alarming 94% of Americans face barriers to getting recommended screenings in the suggested time frames.
Americans have avoided these common preventive care screenings: pap smear (33%); prostate exam (32%); colonoscopy (32%); mammogram (31%); blood test (31%); full body skin cancer exam (27%); STD screening (22%). Notably, millennials are most likely to avoid these overall screenings (62%), closely followed by Gen Z (61%).
Reactive versus proactive health careThe survey reveals possible cognitive dissonance taking place: Americans know they should take a moment to schedule a preventive care screening or wellness visit, but their behavior often suggests otherwise. For 65% of Americans, experiencing a health scare is what made them realize they need to be more proactive about their health. Attitudes about preventive care are often counterintuitive, however, as many of those who believe they will be diagnosed with cancer are more likely to delay screenings (62% vs. 42%).
Experiencing a personal health scare reinforced the importance of preventive care for Aflac Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary Tom Morey. In his mid-20s, he faced a significant and sudden health crisis that kept him out of work for nearly two years and in and out of hospitals for 18 months.
'My personal experiences bring a clear focus on the concerning uptick, as our study reveals, in the number of Americans who may not be on a path to good health. Many avoid going to the doctor instead of doing what they can to avoid a health scare or detect a problem early,' said Morey. 'It starts with making preventive care a priority and taking steps toward establishing a trusted relationship with a primary care doctor. Personally, this helped me to feel more confident, more in control of my health and more empowered to deal with an illness that, otherwise, may have gone undetected.'
Where Americans are turning — or not — for health care Urgent care and emergency rooms provide significant value in American society; however, according to the study, having a primary care physician is correlated with being more likely to get regular checkups. Yet nearly 1 in 5 Americans does not have a regular primary care physician who knows them and understands their medical history. The most common reason for not having a primary care physician is feeling healthy, but that could lead to fewer screenings and more costly health care. Many Americans (41%) — and Gen Z (51%) and millennials (54%) — primarily use urgent care or the emergency room for their medical needs. Men (46%), African Americans (47%), Asian Americans (45%) and U.S. Hispanics (44%) are the most likely to seek medical attention from an urgent care or emergency room. Telehealth is most popular among millennials and Gen X.
While younger generations still visit their doctors, they are more likely than older generations to consult family and friends — and turn to social media — regarding health concerns. While Americans were still slow to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) over the last 12 months, many Americans (68%) are interested in consulting AI in the future when faced with a health concern. Gen Z women (82%) share more interest in trying AI for a health concern, compared to Gen Z men (71%).
Gender differences emerging across many aspects of healthAmong Americans under age 60, women are most likely to admit to skipping common recommended screenings: Gen Z women (68% versus 55% Gen Z men); millennial women (63% versus 61% millennial men); Gen X women (63% versus 54% Gen X men).
Survey data reveals a chasm between young men and women's beliefs around their health and their agency to control it. In fact, Gen Z women (63%) are far less confident in their ability to control their physical health versus Gen Z men (83%). When it comes to mental health, Gen Z women (51%) are far less confident in their ability to control it, compared to Gen Z men (71%). An even wider gap is uncovered in financial health confidence: Gen Z women (49%) versus Gen Z men (71%).
U.S. Hispanics and African Americans most often choose community to reinforce good healthWhen people are confident that their loved ones prioritize their health, they also are more likely to do so. In fact, 70% prioritize recommended screenings and tests versus 49% who are less confident. Also, according to the survey, Hispanic men (86%) are most likely to be swayed by a loved one urging — or even nagging — them to act on their personal health, followed by African American (84%) and Hispanic women (83%). In general, men (79%) are more likely than women (71%) to say that nagging is effective.
The study also finds that families who prioritize health tend to do so together. Many Americans say their spouses or partners are their biggest health advocates after themselves. Parents advocate for their children, with one-third of African Americans and one-third of U.S. Hispanics citing their mothers as their top advocate. As children grow up, they advocate for their parents, too. These advocates play an important role in disease prevention. In fact, of those diagnosed with cancer, 24% say a loved one urged them to get checked — making a meaningful difference.
African Americans are more likely than other ethnic groups to be diagnosed during a regularly scheduled screening (34%) or at an appointment scheduled at the urging of a loved one (32%). Many Americans (73%) feel the positive benefits of thoughtful nudge about preventive care, with 83% African Americans, 79% U.S. Hispanics, 78% Gen Z and 77% millennials expressing thankfulness or a sense of relief that a friend or loved one urged them to go to the doctor.
'Having a 'we are in this together' approach to our health may lead to better outcomes for Americans, their families and loved ones,' said Morey. 'One way to advocate is to schedule preventive care appointments together, at the same time. Our survey shows that Americans who book health appointments at a specific time of year are twice as likely to follow through with recommended checkups and screenings.'Aflac Wellness Matters Survey results are available to American consumers, health care providers, families and health-related stakeholders to educate and inspire a healthier population. To learn more about the 2025 Wellness Matters Survey and find tips on how to take charge of your own health and encourage others to prioritize theirs, visit Aflac.com/WellnessMatters.
ABOUT THE 2025 AFLAC WELLNESS MATTERS SURVEY This third annual Aflac Wellness Matters Survey, conducted in January 2025, provides insight into the health care attitudes, behaviors and influences of U.S. adults. It explores important issues such as routine health appointments and recommended health screenings, how health care is prioritized compared to other factors, and who are the biggest influences on individuals' decisions to seek routine care. The survey was conducted among a nationally representative sample of 2,000 employed U.S. adults ages 18-65 in January 2025 by Kantar Profiles on behalf of Aflac. ABOUT AFLAC INCORPORATED
Aflac Incorporated (NYSE: AFL), a Fortune 500 company, has helped provide financial protection and peace of mind for nearly seven decades to millions of policyholders and customers through its subsidiaries in the U.S. and Japan. In the U.S., Aflac is the No. 1 provider of supplemental health insurance products.2 In Japan, Aflac Life Insurance Japan is the leading provider of cancer and medical insurance in terms of policies in force. The company takes pride in being there for its policyholders when they need us most, as well as being included in the World's Most Ethical Companies by Ethisphere for 19 consecutive years (2025) and Fortune's World's Most Admired Companies for 24 years (2025). In addition, the company became a signatory of the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) in 2021 and has been included in the Dow Jones Sustainability North America Index (2024) for 11 years. To find out how to get help with expenses health insurance doesn't cover, get to know us at aflac.com or aflac.com/español. Investors may learn more about Aflac Incorporated and its commitment to corporate social responsibility and sustainability at investors.aflac.com under 'Sustainability.'
Media contact: Jon Sullivan, 706-763-4813 or [email protected]
Analyst and investor contact: David A. Young, 706-596-3264, 800-235-2667 or [email protected]
1 2025 Wellness Matters Survey 2 LIMRA 2024 U.S. Supplemental Health Insurance Total Market Report
Aflac's family of insurers include American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, American Family Life Assurance Company of New York, Continental American Insurance Company, and Tier One Insurance Company.
Aflac | WWHQ | 1932 Wynnton Road | Columbus, GA 31999
Z2500249Exp. 4/26
Visit 3BL Media to see more multimedia and stories from Aflac Incorporated
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
NIH scientists sign open letter criticizing Trump administration's grant cancellations, firings
More than 300 scientists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) signed an open letter on Monday morning to director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, criticizing the Trump administration over recent moves. The letter, including 92 signed names and 250 anonymous but verified signatories, shares concerns that research is being politicized, global collaboration is being interrupted and that budget and staff cuts have hindered the ability of NIH to do important research. "[W]e dissent to Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe," the letter reads. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources." Some of the NIH scientists who signed the letter, speaking in their personal capacity and not on behalf of the agency, told ABC News they and their colleagues have tried to raise concerns internally -- and repeatedly -- but to no avail. They said there is now an urgency to speak up, especially as Bhattacharya is set to testify on Tuesday at a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the proposed NIH budget for the upcoming fiscal year. "There is a lot of risk to speaking up, and I am very scared still, even after it's already done, even after it's already said," Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and one of the lead organizers of the letter, told ABC News. "I think a lot of people are focused on the risk of speaking up, but we also need to think about the risk of not speaking up." The letter, called the Bethesda Declaration -- NIH is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland -- is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, of which Bhattacharya was a co-author. Published in October 2020 and named after the Massachusetts town in which it was drafted, the Great Barrington Declaration called for COVID-19 lockdowns to be avoided and a new plan for handling the pandemic by protecting the most vulnerable individuals but allowing most to resume normal activities, achieving herd immunity naturally. At the time, it was widely criticized by public health professionals, including Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, who said allowing a virus "we don't fully understand to run free is simply unethical." During testimony before Congress in March 2023, Bhattacharya said the declaration was targeted for "suppression" by federal health officials. "We modeled the Bethesda Declaration after the Great Barrington Declaration … because we wanted him to see himself in our action," Norton said. "He's spoken a lot about his commitment to academic freedom and to dissent. If Jay Bhattacharya is the person he very publicly claims to be, and if he is actually in charge at NIH, our hope is that this will move him to action. And if he's not the person he says to be or he's not in charge at NIH, I think the public and Congress should be aware of that." The letter called on Bhattacharya to reverse grants that have been delayed or terminated for "political reasons" and to allow work with foreign collaborators. The signatories also asked Bhattacharya to reverse a policy capping indirect costs for research at 15% and to reinstate essential staff who were fired at NIH. "The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration," Bhattacharya said in a statement to ABC News. "Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed." A spokesperson for the Department of Health & Human Services told ABC News that the agency has not halted "legitimate" collaborations with international partners. Additionally, the spokesperson said other funders, like the Gates Foundation, cap indirect costs at 15% and that each case of termination is being reviewed. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral researcher at the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences whose work focused on antimicrobial resistance, told ABC News seeing the changes at the agency has been a "traumatic experience." He said when the Trump administration came into office, he was prevented from doing research in his lab because he couldn't purchase essential items and he was not allowed to attend a conference in February to speak with potential collaborators. He also saw many of his coworkers get accidentally terminated and then reinstated. "It's just really traumatic and really disruptive for researchers at the NIH," Morgan, who signed the letter, said. "We get into this not because we're trying to make money, not because of our own benefit. We're getting into this because we want to serve the public. We want to do life-saving research." Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute (NCI) who also signed the letter, said prior to the new administration, she worked with researchers interested either in receiving funds from NCI or who had funds already and were requesting assistance from NCI. However, with more than 2,100 research grants totaling around $9.5 billion terminated at NIH -- according to the letter -- she said some of her daily tasks have changed. "I spend my time on the phone now talking with people who've just learned that their projects have been cut and have been given false, pseudo-scientific reasons to say their work is not valuable, not important for public health for America, and it's just not true," Kobrin told ABC News. The NIH researchers told ABC News there is a public letter that people can sign to express their support or they can contact their congressional representatives to express their concerns. Morgan, the antimicrobial researcher, said he doesn't want the letter to just be about detailing all the changes that occurred at NIH since Trump took office. "It is us standing up and showing that that not everything is lost, and certainly there's been irreparable damage, but we still have time to right the ship and take it in the right direction," he said. "I need to leave people with that message of hope because, otherwise, they can feel there's nothing that they can do, and that we're powerless, but we are all powerful."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
NIH scientists condemn Trump research cuts
Hundreds of staffers from across the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are speaking out against the politicization of their research and termination of their work while demanding that the drastic changes made at the agency be walked back. In a letter addressed to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, more than 2,000 signatories stated, 'we dissent to Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' The letter was titled 'The Bethesda Declaration' in reference to where NIH's campus is located. The signatories cited Bhattacharya's stated commitment to academic freedom that he made in April and called on him to push back against the changes Trump administration has implemented at NIH under his leadership. 'Academic freedom should not be applied selectively based on political ideology. To achieve political aims, NIH has targeted multiple universities with indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' they wrote. They pointed to U.S. law and prior research that has shown that the participation of diverse populations in studies is necessary for NIH's work. The NIH staffers further blasted the canceling of nearly completed studies. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million,' they wrote. The researchers called on Bhattacharya to restore foreign collaborations with the global scientific community, put independent peer reviews back in place, bring back terminated NIH staffers and rethink the 15 percent cap on indirect study costs that the Trump administration enacted. 'Combined, these actions have resulted in an unprecedented reduction in NIH spending that does not reflect efficiency but rather a dramatic reduction in life-saving research,' they stated. 'Some may use the false impression that NIH funding is not needed to justify the draconian cuts proposed in the President's Budget. This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research.' NIH research is not solely centered in Bethesda. The agency is responsible for funding research projects across the country and abroad. Numerous lawsuits have been filed to combat the pulling back of billions of dollars in NIH funding. Last week, a federal judge allowed a suit filed by university researchers and public health groups challenging the cuts to move forward. Bhattacharya responded to the letter on the social media platform X. 'We all want @NIH to succeed and I believe that dissent in science is productive. However, the Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions NIH has taken in recent months,' he wrote. Bhattacharya said the actions taken at NIH have been to 'remove ideological influence from science' and further argued the agency hasn't halted international scientific collaboration but is instead 'ensuring accountability.' 'Claims that NIH is undermining peer review are misunderstood. We're expanding access to publishing while strengthening transparency, rigor, and reproducibility in NIH-funded research,' he wrote. 'Lastly, we are reviewing each termination case carefully and some individuals have already been reinstated. As NIH priorities evolve, so must our staffing to stay mission-focused and responsibly manage taxpayer dollars.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."
