imSKR wrote:
Hello
AndrewN sir,
To get the correct answer, This argument is based on assumption that revenues from paying patients is less than revenue from governmental or private health insurance to pay hospital bills, which could pay at or below actual costs.
A clarification:
SO in this scenario, even we can’t be asbolutle sure but the overall idea is that there are chances that hospitals would not get same amount of money as they would have got direlty from paying patiencets.
Reason for thinking as such is because of usage of words “strictly limiting “, which means insurers tends not to pay loosely and try to limit the payments. This is the key idea we need to abstract to resolve the argument even it is not given directly, even it may stand wrong in the end. But by reading the argument, our belief is that hospitals will tend to lose money by insurers coming in between. That's the key point to hold while solving the question.
Am I right in thinking? Please give your thought process while reading such argument.Hello,
imSKR. I can see from the timer that I took this question on 1 November last year, and it is a rare one in that I answered in about 50 seconds. Sometimes you just luck out and
know the answer when you see it, and you feel even better about selecting it when you check the others and do not find a compelling alternative.
The crux of the argument is that patients who pay their bills, almost all of whom currently do so via insurance, add extra money to the hospital coffers, and this excess is then used by the hospital to cover
losses from unreimbursed care, which may refer to uninsured individuals who received hospital care but then skipped out on the bill (or could be paying it back in small amounts at a time, a situation that would still limit hospital funds). Since insurance companies are now
strictly limiting what they pay hospitals for the care of insured patients, the extra money that hospitals used to be able to depend on is no longer flowing in. Answer choice (B) fits in nicely with a reasonable outcome. Either hospitals will have to find a new cash stream, or they will have to turn uninsured people away. Or, of course, they could keep things the same and still offer treatment to anyone, but then they might operate at a loss. There is nothing to argue against in (B) as a logical conclusion, so it is the answer we should get behind.
I hope you can appreciate such a thought process. It is rare that I answer a CR question in under a minute, even an easy question, but I guess everything aligned this time.
- Andrew