Be careful what you ask for. More monitoring and testing leads to more false positives, more expenses, and more invasive treatments for conditions that might never have caused any serious symptoms if just left alone.
I agree with the first sentence but not with the latter. Right now The top 5% of al patients accounts for 50% of the spending [0]. The public reference does not go into depth but it closely resembles our internal studies. We also predict that remote monitoring and early detection can severely reduce the costs for that top 5 percent. In addition, a large group will never become the top 5 percent. Finally, I think we can get the number of false positives under control or well guarded at a first line of checkups.
When I read your first line I was thinking you would say "who wants to be monitored all day". I think the ethics aspects requires attention. Do we even want to go that route from a human perspective?
