I think you're exactly right - more frequent, less expensive testing means we have to change the criteria that mandates further investigation. One dilemma I've

I think you're exactly right - more frequent, less expensive testing means we have to change the criteria that mandates further investigation. One dilemma I've been thinking about recently is that there's an unfortunate burden put on care providers due to litigation that results in increased cost - the provider or radiologist that sees a "maybe" or a "shadow" on an image has to order a biopsy just to protect themselves from being sued on the off 1% chance that the thing becomes a serious health concern. In an environment where consumers evaluated their medicine based on value/$ they would be further dissuaded from a biopsy, but in America the nature of medical insurance disincentives this sort of cost analysis skepticism.