gwd-23-1求助 没讨论过~~

Q1:

A major health insurance company in Lagolia pays for special procedures prescribed by physicians only if the procedure is first approved as “medically necessary” by a company-appointed review panel.  The rule is intended to save the company the money it might otherwise spend on medically unnecessary procedures.  The company has recently announced that in order to reduce its costs, it will abandon this rule.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest justification for the company’s decision?

1. Patients often register dissatisfaction with physicians who prescribe nothing for their ailments.

2. Physicians often prescribe special procedures that are helpful but not altogether necessary for the health of the patient.

3. The review process is expensive and practically always results in approval of the prescribed procedure.

4. The company’s review process does not interfere with the prerogative of physicians, in cases where more than one effective procedure is available, to select the one they personally prefer.

5. The number of members of the company-appointed review panel who review a given procedure depends on the cost of the procedure.

   Answer:

医院为了省钱所以要取消这个制度，也就是说原来浪费钱或者不省钱。

答案C就是说这个制度又贵又对结果没太多影响

還是不太理解，

我的認知是公司廢除的制度是不再支付special procedures

所以我選B，因為這些special procedure，雖然有幫助，但對病患而言卻不是必要的

麻煩再仔細解釋一下，為何是C呢

謝謝

这道题中

rule是指公司安排专门的review panel来决定是否付款

c 说review panel 本身就费钱，而且做出的判断大都是通过（即有跟没有是一样的，肯定要取消）

迟到的谢谢 ~~!!!

我明白了, 其实最简单的方法可以通过公司的目的锁定选项的  就是紧扣住经济利益