[glfharris]

It's not as simple as you're suggesting. Take cancer screening for example. Doing more investigations and more procedures for things that weren't going to become problematic puts people at risk for the complications of those procedures.

Screening programmes need to be carefully thought out, not only from a cost-benefit, but from an actual risks vs benefits perspective.

[lol768]

Which is why in other countries, such as the UK, the NHS will look at the potential for preventing disease/extending QALY based on peer-reviewed evidence, the risks of harm and overall cost-effectiveness before then coming up with a model for the whole population when it comes to screening which targets patient demographics most likely to benefit. The following conditions are pro-actively screened in this way:

- Abdominal aortic aneurysm

- Bowel cancer

- Breast cancer

- Cervical cancer

- Diabetic eye screening

Patients with early symptoms of e.g. skin cancer can get moles checked out free of charge, and the yearly dental & vision check will screen for conditions like oral cancer and glaucoma.

The harm of something like a yearly colonoscopy in the general asymptomatic population would far exceed the potential benefits.

[DanBC]

Yes, and the screening committee publish their methodology and evidence. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-national-scre...

[jiggywiggy]

Wasn't that my point?

[pessimizer]

> Screening programmes need to be carefully thought out, not only from a cost-benefit, but from an actual risks vs benefits perspective.

vs.

> It's a bit ridiculous to speak of needing evidence for that.

So from my perspective, you were saying the opposite, and using an argument I've heard before about the power of prayer.