Ah, so you are aware then.

So we should just let companies flood doctors with potential treatments and then hope they have enough time to figure out whats relevant for their patients?

Seems much better use of time and money to have people developing tests meet a pre-defined standard and after that point they're allowed to flood doctors with marketing for the tests.

What use is future medical advancements if it can't meet low bars like proving it works?

Some doctors absolutely would abuse this. I used to date someone whose sister was an endodontist and there was another endodontist in the building who was making over $1m a year. She ended up seeing one of that endodontist’s patients and realized that the other doctor had been making all that money by giving people medical procedures they absolutely did not need.

But only another medical professional would know that; the patients were completely oblivious. I said she should blow the whistle but she “didn’t want to rock the boat”. It definitely changed how I feel about doctors. There’s a massive level of trust there, which most doctors will honor but a few will exploit.

> Their doctor should be qualified to make that judgment without a government bureaucracy

This is like saying AI developers should be qualified to evaluate the effacy of a model without testing the model.

> "If there's no potential harm from the procedure itself"

There is potential harm from the procedure itself because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_constraint and because sticking needles in people and drawing blood carries inherent medical risks.

You're assuming that everyone has access to a doctor, and that people who do have doctors will visit them instead of just looking at their phone.

There is potential harm. That's the point.

It would be more efficient for every single insurance company to evaluate every single treatment and decide if they will cover it?