We screened > 1,000 primary care patients for airflow obstruction and assessed the clinical impact of screening.1This resulted in physicians making a new diagnosis of unsuspected airflow obstruction in 9% of patients, and having a prior diagnosis of airflow obstruction removed in 11%. Physicians reported that based on spirometry results, they would change management in 15%. Poels et al2state that “the results confirm that spirometry should not be used to screen smokers for COPD because it is not yet known if [early] diagnosis will help patients stop smoking.” We would agree with this if diagnosing COPD is of no benefit to the patient, if determining that a patient received a misdiagnosis of COPD is of no value, and if a physician’s decision to change management is of no consequence. Knowing a patient has airflow limitation allows the physician to consider vaccination, exercise prescription, and medication that improve quality of life.3 Discovering that a patient does not have airflow obstruction allows the physician to consider other causes of the symptoms that initially prompted the diagnosis, such as cardiac disease. Concerning future research, we agree with Poels et al2 on the importance of assessing spirometry as a diagnostic tool for primary care patients presenting with respiratory complaints. It would be helpful to develop techniques to improve the quality of the test and its interpretation in primary care. Finally, now that we know spirometry can detect new cases and physicians are willing to consider management changes, we need to assess the impact of these actions on the quality of life of the patients, the important end result.