My contemporaneous (2013) view on this matter (#msg-86983487) was that Cologuard's 87% specificity could be a problem vis-à-vis commercial uptake, and that turned out to be a pretty good call.
However, USPSTF has gone too far, IMO, by improperly defining the test's specificity (#msg-117515504) and failing to take into account the test’s 3-year interval, thereby relegating Cologuard to “alternative” rather than “recommended” status. Thus, I find the arguments in the CCA’s PR (linked above) to be valid.
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated in any area of human knowledge!”
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.