This hill is sadly already not that well defined. If an employer offers to pay for the tests, then the policy seems no more invasive or offensive than mandator

This hill is sadly already not that well defined. If an employer offers to pay for the tests, then the policy seems no more invasive or offensive than mandatory drug tests for employees. Of course, this costs the company money, so they will try to make the option as inconvenient as possible (perhaps by requiring the tests to be taken during lunch breaks), and when this coercion works and reduces the number of people who rely on the tests, the company could change the policy and say that tests are no longer sufficient. If the cost per test is sufficiently small (to start with), people won't die on the hill of $5 tests versus free tests, but then a government which wanted to coerce people away from tests could also make the lab certification requirements more and more onerous, slowly pushing up the costs of the tests until only the rich can afford them.