[LorenPechtel]

You have it backwards.

They really do not want false negatives because that gets them sued. Thus the system will be set up to err on the side of false positives--the current liability climate does not blame them for alarm fatigue.

Consider a local case (although it's possible it was overturned on appeal): Yes, the doctor was unquestionably playing loose with standard safety precautions. His behavior transmitted blood-borne infections. He died in prison which was well deserved.

However, the lawyers went hunting for some deep pockets. The manufacturer of the drug involved in the cross contamination. They made various size vials, including some that were bigger than would be used on one patient. This permitted the doctor to contaminate between patients and got them hit with a $250M verdict. (Never mind that had they truly only used clean needles with them like they should have there never would have been an issue. They used a new needle but the old syringe.)

That's the sort of insane legal pressure driving the garbage.