[sklargh]

I recall a period in the early 2000s when unindicated whole-body CAT-scans were being advertised on television.

That got knocked down pretty quickly but wow a lot of folks picked up a big chunk of their lifetime radiation allowance because of that.

These tests seem to operate under a similar model, disregard the risks of unnecessary testing in return for information of limited utility that may cause material harm.

[bdzr]

I think you're conflating "these tests cause harm" e.g. radiation and "the information gleaned from these tests could cause the patient to make poor decisions". Having a regulatory body make this value judgement for people has quite a bit of disadvantages. See "DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME: THE FDA’S RESTRICTIVE REGULATION OF HOME-TESTING DEVICES" https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article....

[Enginerrrd]

This isn't really a fair criticism. I could be wrong, but I believe your comment reflects a bit of naivete about the current state of evidence-based medicine.

To evaluate the value of performing a diagnostic test as an intervention, you DO have to look at final actual patient outcomes at an appropriate end target which includes sending people unnecessarily down different treatment paths, including additional testing with additional risks. And most importantly is that, in fact, mere knowledge of diagnostic results has been PROVEN to cause harm in many scenarios.

Now... if a patient WANTS that test, I think it should be available. But whether or not it should be performed routinely without prompting is an appropriate question for regulatory bodies.