You would have to scan for those on google but my take is that it may not
reduce cost and may actually increase costs in working up abnormal findings
that are not really significant or acted upon under other conditions.
You would have to ask your doctors about that. Do they work up everything on
an abnormal UA and if they don't then it's not needed.

No not for me.  I working on a profile for basic practice protocols on
visual dipsticks vs instrument reads and needed to go back to the
basics.  Does urinalysis during routine patient physicals have the
potential to reduce health care costs by cheaply screening for and
identifying diseases not preseting.

Like in the case of bladder cancers or urinary tract infections.

Yes, there is a large screening benefit.

A urine dipstick can pick up glucose, protein, an increase in WBC's,
blood for starters. I assume by "urinalysis" you mean a "routine
urinalysis" and not drug screening or any other testing. If you mean the
latter, that's a whole different discussion.

A urine microscopic can pick up casts (not normal), WBC's, RBC's, yeast,
trichomonas, bacteria, and lots of urinary tract abnormalities.

Glucose in the urine can be indicative of diabetes; protein, LOTS of
things; WBC's, infection, blood, LOTS of things. It is an inexpensive
way to screen for many problems, some of which can be serious.

I take it you don't want a urinalysis done on yourself? Routine
urinalysis doesn't have anything to do with drug screening.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology

Is there a screening benefit to conducting urinalyis at every physical?

Can you be more specific? There is no debate that a urinalysis is useful.
What context are you referring to?

Could someone steer me in the right direction for recent debate on the
clinical value of routine urinalysis?