←back to thread

The hit film about overworked nurses that's causing alarm across Europe

(www.theguardian.com)
128 points mykowebhn | 6 comments | 29 Jul 25 15:53 UTC | HN request time: 1.329s | source | bottom
Show context
huijzer ◴[29 Jul 25 16:03 UTC] No.44725035[source]▶
Yes can confirm this is real. I know both German and Dutch nurses who say that the workload is incredibly high. One older nurse also said the pressure today is much higher than years ago.
replies(1): >>44725107 #
thmsths ◴[29 Jul 25 16:08 UTC] No.44725107[source]▶
I am not surprised. Healthcare costs have been rising faster than inflation for several years. It's a difficult sell to increase budgets, so we have to resort to these "invisible" cost cutting measures to try and stay afloat.
replies(9): >>44725163 #>>44725270 #>>44725563 #>>44725719 #>>44725727 #>>44725743 #>>44727455 #>>44738611 #>>44845538 #
WalterBright ◴[29 Jul 25 16:59 UTC] No.44725743[source]▶
Healthcare costs have risen faster than inflation since the 1960s, when the government got involved with providing "free" healthcare.

Before then, costs tracked inflation.

Health care costs that are not provided "free" by the government have fallen, such as lasik eye surgery.

replies(1): >>44727851 #
1. nradov ◴[29 Jul 25 20:24 UTC] No.44727851[source]▶
You seem to have the causality backwards. Prior to the 1960s, the healthcare system couldn't really do much. Most of the drugs, devices, and procedures were relatively cheap. After that the capabilities increased tremendously as did costs, and then government had to get involved to control costs and ensure patient access. (Although many of those government interventions ultimately had the opposite effect.)
replies(1): >>44728924 #
2. WalterBright ◴[29 Jul 25 22:20 UTC] No.44728924[source]▶
Why did Lasik machines decrease in cost, while increasing in efficacy?

Drugs were far cheaper before the 1962 FDA Amendments, after that was a massive increase in costs. See "Regulation of Pharmaceutical Innovation" by Sam Peltzman.

https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-...

See also:

How American Health Care Killed My Father https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-ame...

replies(1): >>44729324 #
3. nradov ◴[29 Jul 25 23:12 UTC] No.44729324[source]▶
Drugs were cheaper back then because they were less safe and effective, and because the easy stuff had mostly already been found.
replies(1): >>44729458 #
4. WalterBright ◴[29 Jul 25 23:33 UTC] No.44729458{3}[source]▶
Before 1962, drugs were already regulated to be safe. 1962 brought about the requirement for effective, which enormously increased drug prices. It's all in the book I referenced.
replies(1): >>44729700 #
5. nradov ◴[30 Jul 25 00:12 UTC] No.44729700{4}[source]▶
Yes, what's your point? We could have lots of cheap drugs if we don't care whether they actually work.
replies(1): >>44729983 #
6. WalterBright ◴[30 Jul 25 00:59 UTC] No.44729983{5}[source]▶
The reference says what happens with the greatly increased cost to develop a new drug, is the number of new drugs developed dropped dramatically. But the percentage that turned out to be effective stayed the same.

So, yes, we are worse off because of that, because we wind up with far fewer effective drugs.

A proper solution is for the patient, a legal consenting adult, to sign a piece of paper that says he understands that the FDA has not verified the drug to be effective.