SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Copper] does this by leaching electrons from bacteria, which causes a charge to build up inside the cell which ultimately leads to free radical formation and cell death. Many studies have now shows that the microbial burden on copper surfaces is reduced by 80% compared to traditional surfaces. When used on frequently touched surfaces in hospitals, this can significantly reduce the amount of bacteria hanging around. Another study showed that the total reduction in bacteria from a copper alloy surface was 99.9% (compared to baseline, not to control surfaces). In controlled studies, copper surfaces work as advertised – they kill bacteria and viruses.
But does this actually reduce the incidence of hospital acquired infections (HAIs, also called health care associated infections)? The answer is yes. A 2017 systematic review of studies found that introducing copper surface in the hospital reduced HAIs by 25%.
[...] This will require a significant investment by hospitals – replacing beds, serving trays, tables, rails, door handles, and other high-touch surfaces. [...] The estimated cost of the most common HAIs is around $10 billion per year in the US. This cost is often absorbed by the hospital. This is because reimbursement for hospital stays is often determined by DRGs – diagnostic related groups. Hospitals are paid by insurance companies based upon the patient's diagnosis. If a patient is admitted for pneumonia, the hospital gets paid a fixed amount which represents the average cost of treating pneumonia. If the patient does well and is discharged quickly, the hospital makes money. If they do not do well and have complications and a prolonged stay, the hospital loses money. This provides a good financial incentive for hospitals to provide efficient and effective care, and minimize complications.
Previously:
(2020-07-19) Laser-Textured Metal Surfaces Kill Bacteria Faster
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday August 02 2020, @11:57PM (1 child)
> Only if you very deliberately twist my words into a pretzel.
> Note that to a Communist the ideal state of an economy is communism, to a Capitalist, not so much.
> Do you REALLY think that means Communists and Capitalists are in agreement that Capitalism == Communism?
No, Socialism == Communism (idealistic "socialist" utopia). I never said Capitalism == Communism (which makes no sense, as they are completely opposite in distribution and core concept).
I really don't see what the problem is. Marx himself defined socialism in its common modern understanding, and described it as a stepping stone to the socialist ideal of "communism". This isn't really up for debate, nor is it propaganda. You can read it from Das Kapital yourself if you like.
Funny thing is, the Communistic ideal is actually quite a nice idea. After the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" has finished and the revolution is "safe" from being retaken by the capitalists, the state was to decentralised into communes (back then called "Soviets"), which would only handle local issues via direct democracy of voting. These communes would elect a representative that would go to the party conference and then they would vote on larger issues of the day.
Sort of a Hybrid of direct democracy. It was a nice idea, however the economic system of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", would never sustain a civilisation. I would like to think that the modern socialists would take the same concept, and try to make it work with Capitalism, which is the experiment currently being pursued in large chunks of western Europe, with varying levels of success.
> And that is....(drum roll please)....SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!
> The government has set the prices, yes?
Not really. If you have insurance (house/car/whatever), you probably have an excess on a claim. So you claim for $20,000 damage, you pay $500 excess, and the insurer pays $19,500. The market price is $20,000, you paid into the insurance so that you are protected against sudden expenses like this, but the full bill is paid in total.
If the government regulates that the excess is $500 for a particular claim, that doesn't mean it sets the prices. The rest of the claim can vary according to market forces, and it does.
That is completely different to actually "setting prices". Under state price settings, the state would mandate that the entire cost of the claim is $500, no matter how much it actually costs to set things right. Long term that is unsustainable, and breeds dysfunction.
> Meanwhile, in the U.S. choice is limited. Each insurance plan comes with a list of doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies that are part of the plan. If you change plans, you may have to change all three. If the insurance company changes it's mind, you have to change.
> If you can't afford the insurance and really need to see a doctor, the best you can do if you need to see a doctor is go to the ER and see whoever is available. You also have to have a prescription here to buy medicines, even from another country.
> A little over a year ago, a group of 600 (or so) diabetics formed a "caravan to Canada" to buy insulin because in the U.S. it costs more than 10 times what it costs in Canada. So much for the invisible hand of the market!
I thought the main reason for the high costs of medicines in the USA are your crazy patent laws? Namely the rest of the world can manufacture "generic" drugs real cheap because they don't have the patent issues that they would have to sell in the USA. Indeed those same generic drugs are banned import in the US due to IP/patent violations (which coincidentally would also hit the profits of your pharmaceutical companies).
If this is really how it works, then you don't have a free market at all, but one where the state has made things expensive for you, due to protecting certain industries from free market competition. Quite the opposite of your initial claim above!
> It's gotten to the point where doctors and pharmacists sometimes break the law out of a sense of compassion and mercy for patients who may otherwise die.
My condolences for living in such a dysfunctional system. Unfortunately I think the problem is cultural. Both the USA and UK have the same cultural root (language, law, concepts of society), one has hyper private healthcare, the other fully socialised healthcare, Yet both systems are a dysfunctional mess that more often than not fail in their core remit to provide healthcare.
While I am all for you reforming your system, I worry that even if you switched to fully socialised medicine, you would stlil end up with a dysfunctional system (in another way). Still, best of luck! It will be a long hard slog to reform, seeing all the vested interests in keeping the status quo.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday August 03 2020, @12:34AM
Patents are pretty much world wide now. Other countries set limits on how much pharmaceutical companies can charge, the U.S. does not. Some use the threat of allowing generic production as a bludgeon to enforce the price limits. Others simply negotiate using the market power of a large pool of patients to keep prices in line.
You might want to look again at Germany. Although private options exist, it is for the most part socialized (77%)., There are also significant price controls.
The U.K. system's biggest problem seems to be monkey wrenching by conservatives that want to follow Trump off the cliff.Based on statistics and people I've talked to who have used it, it is not worse than in the U.S., but it is a lot less expensive.