Newborn screening and genetic testing have expanded rapidly in the last decade with the advent of multiplex (e.g., tandem mass spectrometry) and/or DNA technologies. However, screening panels include a large number of disorders, which may not meet all of the traditional screening criteria, established in late 1960s, and used for years to justify screening programs. After a period of expansion driven by technological advances, many reports have reconsidered the justification of expanded programs. Many factors have contributed to test-panel discrepancies between countries. The test-panel review methodology, the way health benefits are weighed against harms, and the socioeconomic-political environment all play a role. Expansion of screening also requires reconsideration of the infrastructure (ideally, in the context of national plans for rare diseases) to support testing, counselling, education, treatment, and follow-up. Consequently, economic aspects cannot be ignored and can be a limitation for expansion. New ethical questions have emerged: risks of discrimination or stigmatization, respect of the autonomy of persons to make decisions, parental anxiety resulting from a false positive test (especially when reporting to parents screening results for untreatable conditions identified as by-products of screening), etc. For disorders where there is not yet confirmation of benefit, it may be prudent to recommend pilot screening and to have a mechanism that can be used to adapt or even to stop a program.