Many United States companies believe that the rising cost of employees' health care benefits has hurt the country's competitive position in the global market by raising production costs and thus increasing the prices of exported and domestically sold goods. As a result, these companies have shifted health care costs to employees in the form of wage deductions or high deductibles. This strategy, however, has actually hindered companies' competitiveness. For example, cost shifting threatens employees' health because many do not seek preventive screening. Also, labor relations have been damaged: the percentage of strikes in which health benefits were a major issue rose from 18 percent in 1986 to 78 percent in 1989.
Health care costs can be managed more effectively if companies intervene in the supply side of health care delivery just as they do with other key suppliers: strategies used to procure components necessary for production would work in procuring health care. For example, the make/buy decision—the decision whether to produce or purchase parts used in making a product—can be applied to health care. At one company, for example, employees receive health care at an on-site clinic maintained by the company. The clinic fosters morale, resulting in a low rate of employees leaving the company. Additionally, the company has constrained the growth of health care costs while expanding medical services.
Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the author's view about intervening on the supply side of health care?
Most companies do not have enough employees to make on-site clinics cost-effective.
Many companies with on-site clinics offer their employees the option of going outside the company's system to obtain health care.
The costs of establishing and running an on-site clinic are demonstrably higher than the costs of paying for health care from an outside provider.
Companies with health care clinics find that employees are unwilling to assist in controlling the costs of health care.
Employees at companies with on-site clinics seek preventive screening and are thus less likely to delay medical treatment.
题目分析:
题目释义:
细节题目
考点:
逻辑结构(Logical structure)
旨在考察我们对文章结构的认知,以及对作者行文目的的判断。
这道题首先我们要知道作者看待“intervening on the supply side of health care”的态度。这是作者提出的一个方法,自己肯定持肯定态度。然后根据文中出现的细节就可以解题了。
选项分析:
A选项:大部分公司都没有足够的员工来让“on-site clinics”划算。这个选项是否定的态度。相反的,它削弱了作者的观点。
B选项:许多有“on-site clinics”的公司都提供员工去公司外的地方执行医疗保障的选项。如果这个选项是对的,那么作者提出的这个双赢的办法就被削弱了。(“on-site clinics”的公司都提供员工去公司外的地方执行医疗保障---- on-site clinics形同虚设)。
C选项:建立和运营“on-site clinics”比让员工去公司外执行医疗保障花费更大。这个选项定位在“employees receive health care at an on-site clinic maintained by the company. The clinic fosters morale, resulting in a low rate of employees leaving the company. Additionally, the company has constrained the growth of health care costs while expanding medical services.”。如果这个花费大于去公司外的花费,那么省钱的初衷就无法达到了。所以不支持作者的观点。
D选项:有医疗保障诊所的公司发现员工不愿意支持公司控制医疗保障经费。如果员工不支持,那么就不会来公司自带的诊所,以前的问题依旧存在。所以这个选项也不支持作者的观点。
E选项:Correct。有“on-site clinics”的公司员工会进行预防性检查,因此不会耽误病情。员工不愿意进行预防性检查是以前的方法的弊病。如果现在可以解决,那无疑是支持了作者的肯定态度。
作者的view:优化供给段,搞on site
A; on site 不effective (on site是solution 作者优化的是supply 不是 已经有的 on site)
B: on site 没人用
C: on site 更贵
D:员工不止持control cost (需求段)
E:预防性检查
本质上是推理题而不是阅读题,思路搞错了,答案根本就不在原文
推理论述题:找支持作者话风的选项
第一段This strategy, however, has actually 【hindered companies' competitiveness】. For example, 【cost shifting】 【threatens】 employees' health because many do not seek preventive screening.
ABCD选项都是对这个onsite clinic方案的削弱,只有E是支持这个proposal的
旧方法(cost shifting )的弊端是threatens employees' health because many do not seek preventive screening,因而造成大量关于健康问题的罢工
新方法自然是旨在消除这种弊端,所以选E
乍一看,E选项无关,但是结合文章内容 For example, cost shifting threatens employees' health because many do not seek preventive screening. 这个例子是用来支持与作者不同意的观点的,E选项的意思正好是上面这个例子的对立面,即可以支持作者的观点,选E