<description>&lt;p&gt;A loyal listener wrote in to question this claim made by neuroscientist Dr Daniel Levitin: "Here in the US valium in a pharmacy might be $3 that same pill in a hospital setting might be $750."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Our listener was shocked at how one pill can cost 250 x more in a hospital setting than in a pharmacy. But can it? Sort of. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We turned to Elisabeth Rosenthal to take us on a dive into the frankly shocking world of US Health costs. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Presenter: Tim Harford 
Producer: Lizzy McNeill 
Series Producer: Tom Colls 
Editor: Richard Vadon 
Production Coordinator: Maria Ogundele 
Sound Mix: Neil Churchill&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Can the same pill cost $3 in a pharmacy and $750 in a hospital?

A loyal listener wrote in to question this claim made by neuroscientist Dr Daniel Levitin: "Here in the US valium in a pharmacy might be $3 that same pill in a hospital setting might be $750."Our listener was shocked at how one pill can cost 250 x more in a hospital setting than in a pharmacy. But can it? Sort of. We turned to Elisabeth Rosenthal to take us on a dive into the frankly shocking world of US Health costs. Presenter: Tim Harford 
Producer: Lizzy McNeill 
Series Producer: Tom Colls 
Editor: Richard Vadon 
Production Coordinator: Maria Ogundele 
Sound Mix: Neil Churchill

The shocking world of US health costs

<description>&lt;p&gt;The NHS is warning of an unprecedented flu season - we check what the numbers say.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Is there really a mass exodus of Brits leaving the UK due to Labour tax policies? We look at the latest emigration figures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We take a look at the prison service’s curious habit of letting prisoners out early – or keeping them in for too long - is there a trend?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Plus - why the US economy can’t grow at 25 percent a year.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Presenter: Tim Harford
Reporter: Nathan Gower
Producers: Charlotte McDonald, Katie Solleveld, Lizzy McNeill and Tom Colls.
Production co-ordinator: Maria Ogundele
Sound mix: Gareth Jones
Editor: Richard Vadon&lt;/p&gt;</description>

The NHS is warning of an unprecedented flu season - we check.

The NHS is warning of an unprecedented flu season - we check what the numbers say.Is there really a mass exodus of Brits leaving the UK due to Labour tax policies? We look at the latest emigration figures.We take a look at the prison service’s curious habit of letting prisoners out early – or keeping them in for too long - is there a trend?Plus - why the US economy can’t grow at 25 percent a year.Presenter: Tim Harford
Reporter: Nathan Gower
Producers: Charlotte McDonald, Katie Solleveld, Lizzy McNeill and Tom Colls.
Production co-ordinator: Maria Ogundele
Sound mix: Gareth Jones
Editor: Richard Vadon

Do we really have ‘superflu’?

<description>&lt;p&gt;Whether we like it or not, global warming is happening. The global temperature has already gone up, and it’s going to go up more, because the atmosphere is already full of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and we’re continuing to add to that stock. Quite how much it will increase by is a very important question for all of us. 
 
Until relatively recently, during much of the 2010s and into the 2020s, many scientists claimed that if we kept on going down the path we were on, if we just kept on with business as usual, then by the end of the century global temperatures would increase by almost five degrees centigrade. 
 
This projection was based on something called RCP 8.5, a statistical scenario used by scientists to model the future of the climate. 
 
You can still find scientific papers published in 2025 that make the same claim. However, there’s a good case that RCP 8.5 should never have been used as the business-as-usual scenario. And in hindsight it doesn’t look like an accurate vision of the future at all. 
 
So what’s going on? 
 
Dr Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and the climate research lead at Stripe, explains the argument. 
 
Presenter: Tim Harford 
Series producer: Tom Colls 
Sound mix: Donald MacDonald 
Editor: Richard Vadon&lt;/p&gt;</description>

How an important climate model was too pessimistic about the future

Whether we like it or not, global warming is happening. The global temperature has already gone up, and it’s going to go up more, because the atmosphere is already full of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and we’re continuing to add to that stock. Quite how much it will increase by is a very important question for all of us. 
 
Until relatively recently, during much of the 2010s and into the 2020s, many scientists claimed that if we kept on going down the path we were on, if we just kept on with business as usual, then by the end of the century global temperatures would increase by almost five degrees centigrade. 
 
This projection was based on something called RCP 8.5, a statistical scenario used by scientists to model the future of the climate. 
 
You can still find scientific papers published in 2025 that make the same claim. However, there’s a good case that RCP 8.5 should never have been used as the business-as-usual scenario. And in hindsight it doesn’t look like an accurate vision of the future at all. 
 
So what’s going on? 
 
Dr Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and the climate research lead at Stripe, explains the argument. 
 
Presenter: Tim Harford 
Series producer: Tom Colls 
Sound mix: Donald MacDonald 
Editor: Richard Vadon

RCP 8.5: Why did the climate change model get it wrong?

<description>&lt;p&gt;Around the world, many countries are concerned about tackling the decline in birth rates and total fertility rates. 
 
The US is no exception.
 
To tackle this issue the US government announced that it would provide subsidies for Americans seeking IVF treatment. The announcement was accompanied by one suspect sounding stat from US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 
 
"Today the average teenager in this country has 50% of the sperm count, 50% of the testosterone as a 65-year-old man," he said. 
 
We speak to Professor Allan Pacey, Professor of Andrology at the University of Manchester, and Adith Arun, a researcher at Yale University to find out whether this statement is accurate. 
 
Producer/Presenter: Lizzy McNeill
Series Producer: Tom Colls
Editor: Richard Vadon
Sound Mix: James Beard&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Do US teens have 50% lower sperm and testosterone counts than 65 year old men?

Around the world, many countries are concerned about tackling the decline in birth rates and total fertility rates. 
 
The US is no exception.
 
To tackle this issue the US government announced that it would provide subsidies for Americans seeking IVF treatment. The announcement was accompanied by one suspect sounding stat from US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 
 
"Today the average teenager in this country has 50% of the sperm count, 50% of the testosterone as a 65-year-old man," he said. 
 
We speak to Professor Allan Pacey, Professor of Andrology at the University of Manchester, and Adith Arun, a researcher at Yale University to find out whether this statement is accurate. 
 
Producer/Presenter: Lizzy McNeill
Series Producer: Tom Colls
Editor: Richard Vadon
Sound Mix: James Beard

Is RFK right about US sperm counts?

<description>&lt;p&gt;In the later part of the 20th century, a pioneering group of economists started shaking up their academic field.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;These “behavioural economists” used findings from experimental psychology and everyday life to challenge the prevailing view that human beings were rational decision makers – acting in predictable ways to maximize their wealth.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;One of those pioneers was Richard Thaler, who noted down some of these “anomalies” in a column in the 1980s, which was turned into a book - The Winner’s Curse - first published in 1992. His work also won him the Nobel memorial prize in economics in 2017.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;More than 30 years on, he has returned to that book, publishing a new, updated version with co-author Alex Imas, which looks at whether those anomalies in rational thinking have stood the test of time. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tim asks him to set out two of his most famous ideas – the winner’s curse itself, and the idea of “mental accounting”.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Presenter: Tim Harford
Series producer: Tom Colls
Sound mix: Donald MacDonald
Editor: Richard Vadon&lt;/p&gt;</description>

Richard Thaler on two of his most famous observations in behavioural economics

In the later part of the 20th century, a pioneering group of economists started shaking up their academic field.These “behavioural economists” used findings from experimental psychology and everyday life to challenge the prevailing view that human beings were rational decision makers – acting in predictable ways to maximize their wealth.One of those pioneers was Richard Thaler, who noted down some of these “anomalies” in a column in the 1980s, which was turned into a book - The Winner’s Curse - first published in 1992. His work also won him the Nobel memorial prize in economics in 2017.More than 30 years on, he has returned to that book, publishing a new, updated version with co-author Alex Imas, which looks at whether those anomalies in rational thinking have stood the test of time. Tim asks him to set out two of his most famous ideas – the winner’s curse itself, and the idea of “mental accounting”.Presenter: Tim Harford
Series producer: Tom Colls
Sound mix: Donald MacDonald
Editor: Richard Vadon

Richard Thaler and The Winner’s Curse

Tim Harford explains - and sometimes debunks - the numbers and statistics used in political debate, the news and everyday life

More or Less

Details

Recent Episodes