"where is the wasted tax payer money to get luke-warm results on what should be obvious?"
ftfy.
It's not as though people walking into a primary care center are dropping dead left and right, no matter who sees them. Hell, I could see patients at a primary care setting and the spike in mortality would be relatively low, despite the fact that I am essentially worthless right now.
Groups of patients:
group 1: No intervention needed, need maintenance (No changes, will water down other issues)
group 2: Sick, but nothing you can do about it. Once again, no changes in data, water down other results
group 3: sick, need intervention, but the intervention is easy (will make both groups look good)
group 4: sick, hard to spot, will be less well off but not greatly well off with intervention. Probably won't show up unless specifically looked for
group 5: sick, hard to spot, will die or experience serious harm without intervention. The only ones who will show up, and fairly rare. May go to emergency room, and so avoid harm.
Group five will take time to show up, and groups three and four are hard to spot unless specifically studied. It would probably be easier to id these people via simulation, and written tests. Finally, chart review in the states where they get free reign (after they have some time to accrue mortality).