Tim Harford is hardly a 'random journalist'; he's a well respected economic journalist, and a fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford (which is notable within the university for its focus on social sciences).
Besides which, it doesn't draw a false distinction between the two, at all - you've misread the article if you think that it does. The point it makes is that if a new screen improves five year survival rates it is very possible that it has not actually extended anyone's life, and that this is problematic because many doctors are unable to realise this (or to appreciate how significant the claims of other treatments are).
In fact, your claim that there's no such thing as "saving lives" is a true case of asininity. Of course we die eventually - but some treatments can extend life, and that's why we use them.
Moreover, this is actually a very important topic in the UK at the moment (note that this article was published in the Financial Times), because current NHS reforms are putting much more commissioning power in the hands of consortiums of GPs ('family doctors' in the US parlance) - so the ability of doctors to evaluate the claims of efficacy made for different treatments and screens is very important (and by the evidence of the research he cites, somewhat lacking). It's hardly lambasting - it is now important that GPs can understand these subtleties, whether they're happy about being in this situation or not.