Of course they wouldn’t give that as a justification. Look at the reaction of the BC community over the change in recommendation with the justification of unnecessary anxiety/morbidity—do you imagine there’d be less outrage if the reported reason for changing the guideline was money? They were retarded enough to bring this up during the health-care debate as it is...
To make the cost argument, you’d need to also present the cost differences caused by earlier detection of a small number of cancers. The cost of treating a single case might be greater than the cost of testing a thousand cases.
I suspect that the only way skipping early detection can be a win, cost-wise, is if it enables more people to die before they receive costly treatment.
Early detection can also lead to overdiagnosis. The report discusses that as a factor in their decision.