There should be no surprise whatsoever that the appetite for risk and the manner in which risk is managed has shifted as a result of changing from a military to a commercial SAR provider. Sometimes this will be a good thing, sometimes it won't. It all depends on your perspective (casualty on the hill v aircraft insurer, for example). Whereas lines have often been blurred in the past you can bet your bottom dollar there will no longer be any ambiguity.
Unfortunately none of this is quantifiable so political statements that herald the new service as a 'better' service are impossible to disprove. Likewise, certain parties may argue that some military SAR missions in the past flirted with unnecessary levels of risk. Again, impossible to prove. The debate will continue ad infinitum.