问答题Passage 3  Canada’s premiers (the leaders of provincial governments), if they have any breath left after complaining about Ottawa at their late July annual meeting, might spare a moment to do something, together, to reduce health-care costs.  They’re a

题目
问答题
Passage 3  Canada’s premiers (the leaders of provincial governments), if they have any breath left after complaining about Ottawa at their late July annual meeting, might spare a moment to do something, together, to reduce health-care costs.  They’re all groaning about soaring health budgets, the fastest-growing components of which are pharmaceutical costs.  (1) ______  What to do? Both the Romanow commission and the Kirby committee on health care—to say nothing of reports from other experts—recommended the creation of a national drug agency. Instead of each province having its own list of approved drugs, bureaucracy, procedures and limited bargaining power, all would pool resources, work with Ottawa, and create a national institution.  (2) ______  But “national” doesn’t have to mean that. “National” could mean interprovincial—provinces combining efforts to create one body.  Either way, one benefit of a “national” organization would be to negotiate better prices, if possible, with drug manufacturers. Instead of having one province—or a series of hospitals within a province—negotiate a price for a given drug on the provincial list, the national agency would negotiate on behalf of all provinces.  Rather than, say, Quebec, negotiating on behalf of seven million people, the national agency would negotiate on behalf of 31 million people. Basic economics suggests the greater the potential consumers, the higher the likelihood of a better price.  (3) ______  A small step has been taken in the direction of a national agency with the creation of the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, funded by Ottawa and the provinces. Under it, a Common Drug Review recommends to provincial lists which new drugs should be included. Predictably, and regrettably, Quebec refused to join.  A few premiers are suspicious of any federal-provincial deal-making. They (particularly Quebec and Alberta) just want Ottawa to fork over additional billions with few, if any, strings attached. That’s one reason why the idea of a national list hasn’t gone anywhere, while drug costs keep rising fast.  (4) ______  Premiers love to quote Mr. Romanow’s report selectively, especially the parts about more federal money. Perhaps they should read what he had to say about drugs: “A national drug agency would provide governments more influence on pharmaceutical companies in order to constrain the ever-increasing cost of drugs.”  (5) ______  So when the premiers gather in Niagara Falls to assemble their usual complaint list, they should also get cracking about something in their jurisdiction that would help their budgets and patients.[A] Quebec’s resistance to a national agency is provincialist ideology. One of the first advocates for a national list was a researcher at Laval University. Quebec’s Drug Insurance Fund has seen its costs skyrocket with annual increases from 14.3 percent to 26.8 percent![B] Or they could read Mr. Kirby’s report: “the substantial buying power of such an agency would strengthen the public prescription-drug insurance plans to negotiate the lowest possible purchase prices from drug companies.”[C] What does “national” mean? Roy Romanow and Senator Michael Kirby recommended a federal-provincial body much like the recently created National Health Council.[D] The problem is simple and stark: health-care costs have been, are, and will continue to increase faster than government revenues.[E] According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, prescription drug costs have risen since 1997 at twice the rate of overall health-care spending. Part of the increase comes from drugs being used to replace other kinds of treatment. Part of it arises from new drugs costing more than older kinds. Part of it is higher prices.[F] So, if the provinces want to run the health-care show, they should prove they can run it, starting with an interprovincial health list that would end duplication, save administrative costs, prevent one province from being played off against another, and bargain for better drug prices.[G] Of course, the pharmaceutical companies will scream. They like divided buyers; they can lobby better that way. They can use the threat of removing jobs from one province to another. They can hope that, if one province includes a drug on its list, the pressure will cause others to include it on theirs. They wouldn’t like a national agency, but self-interest would lead them to deal with it.

相似考题
参考答案和解析
正确答案: 1.E 空格下一段以问句“What to do?开头”表明空白部分应该提出了需要解决的问题,或者棘手的现象,而空格前一段指出加拿大的省长们为医疗预算上涨而抱怨连连,而药品价格的上涨是造成医疗费用上涨的一个主要因素。由此可以推断,空格中内容应该以药品价格上涨为中心展开论述。选项中只有E项主要介绍了药品价格上涨的具体情况和产生原因,因此E项符合题意。
2.C 空格上一段主要介绍了两个调查小组针对医疗卫生现状提出的建议——创建国家性药物机构,并对国家性机构作出简单定义,由此可推断空格中内容可能会使对国家机构的进一步解释。紧接着,空格下一段是对“国家的(national)”一词作出另一种解释,“但是“国家性”的含义并不一定指的是这一点”。由 “that”可知空格中内容必定提到了国家的含义。选项中只有C项What does “national” mean? 提到了“国家性”的概念,故选C。
3.G 空格上文解释了国家性机构的主要优势,并以魁北克省为例,解释了了一个国家性机构的一个经济优势:潜在的顾客越多,获得更优惠价格的可能性就越高。空格下文介绍了国家性机构的具体实施情况以及实施过程中遇到的阻力。选项中G项讲述了关于药厂的反应,他们喜欢分散的买家,因为具有议价的各种便利,但是如果设立国家机构,即使不喜欢,他们为了自身利益也不得不设法接受,所以他们才会“scream”大呼小叫的。本段内容“divided buyers”与上文观点“潜在的顾客越多,获得更优惠价格的可能性就越高”分别代表了厂家和国家机构的利益所在,相互照应,且与下文衔接自然,故选G。
4.F 空格上文叙述了国家性机构的实施情况,遇到的阻碍以及这些阻碍产生的一个原因,因此下文主要深入分析产生这些阻碍的原因和清楚这些障碍的办法,选项中只有F项主要介绍了省长们要解决医疗问题的条件和方法,故选F。
5.B 上文第三段(不包括空格内容)中,在解释国家性质的时候,作者提到了罗马诺和科尔比医疗卫生委员会,他们都是国家性药物机构的倡导者。空格前一段介绍了罗马诺的报告内容,说明了建立全国性机构的重要性,空格下文是对全文的一个总结。而B项介绍了科尔比报告内容对机构重要性的补充说明,与上下文衔接自然,故选B。
解析: 暂无解析