In Kantovia, physicians’ income comes from insurance companies, which

Notice the contradiction in this passage. On the one hand, most physicians believe the requirements of insurance companies now "prevent them from spending enough time with patients." Yet at the same time, the "average amount of time a patient spends with a physician during an office visit has actually increased somewhat over the last ten years."

So although physicians feel they're spending too little time patients, ever since the requirements were implemented ten years ago, they've actually been spending more time with patients. The correct answer should help resolve this "apparent discrepancy."

Let's now consider the answer choices:


This concerns the time patients spend waiting to see physicians, not the amount of time they spend with physicians. Since it doesn't affect the amount of time physicians actually spend with patients, we can discard (A).


If physicians had a wider range of diagnosis and treatments options to consider today, they may need more time with patients than they did in the past. This could explain why physicians today feel they get too little time with patients DESPITE having more time than they did in the past. Let's hold on to (B).


The fact that physicians are in group practices wouldn't affect the amount of time they'd spend with patients in any clear way. Discard (C).


The question of trust has no direct relation to the length of physician office visits. Get rid of (D).


This would give physicians a financial incentive to shorten their office visits with patients. It would not, however, explain why physicians today feel they get too little time with each patient DESPITE having more time than in the past. (E) is out.

That leaves us with (B), the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Bumping for review and further discussion
New GmatClub project Click here

I would go with option B.

B clearly says, why the time per patient is increasing in the last ten years.Because,the physician has more options to consider.But, spending more time is causing the physician deviate more from company's guidelines. According to the passage, "ten years ago physicians were allowed more discretion".This sentence makes me believe that company's guidelines have changed ten years back.
Thus, choice B clearly achieves its purpose.

My 2 cents !

PS:Edited option B.

why can't it be 'C'. By working in a group, each doctor spends less time with the patient, while the total time each patient spends with the doctor (s) increases. Is this making sense?

You've misunderstood the statement. It is group practice not group treatment. For example there can be a doctor on day shift and a doctor on evening shift. The meeting with patients is still on one-on-one basis.

Claim 1: Most physicians believe these documentation requirements prevent them from spending enough time with patients.
Claim 2: Yet, the average amount of time patients spend with physicians has actually increased.

A. Patients are more likely to be in a hurry nowadays and are less willing to wait a long time to see their physician.
Incorrect: irrelevant to our argument, and it does not explain the discrepancy.

B. Physicians today typically have a wider range of options in diagnosis and treatment to consider with the patient before prescribing.
Correct: while it could still be true that physicians believe that documentation reduces the time they can spend with patients, B states that doctors are now able to spend time with patients because they have more to consider when diagnosing/examining patients.

C. Physicians are increasingly likely to work in group practices, sharing the responsibility of night and weekend work.
Incorrect: irrelevant to our argument, and it does not explain the discrepancy.

D. Most patients would rather trust their physicians than their insurance companies to make decisions about their treatment.
Incorrect: irrelevant to our argument, and it does not explain the discrepancy.

E. Since the insurance companies pay physicians a set amount for each office visit, it is to physicians’ financial advantage to see as many Patients as possible.
Incorrect: tempting, but take note of the particular language. The argument is talking about time spent with individual patients, not all patients in general. We could still have doctors seeing more patients than ever before, but still complain that they don't have enough time to spend with any of them individually, due to the insurance company's documentation requirement. This does not resolve the discrepancy.

Remember that paradox answer choices must address both sides of the inconsistency. In this case, it is the 'before' and the 'after' the implementation of the new treatment guidelines. Hence, one can easily eliminate answer choices C,D,E as they have no basis of comparison. Between A and B, A actually weakens the conclusion.

Answer: B

Hope this helps
Cheers
J

Obvious answers that are out : A, C, D
Now between B and E i would choose B.
The argument in question is average amount of time a patient spends with a physician. Option E says its financially beneficial to see as many patients a physician can. We still dont know the average time per patient.
B precisely implies more option to consider====> more time a patient has to spend

Hey everyone,

I picked Option 'E', for the reason that the argument states that physicians get to spend less time with patients and that the actual time spent at the office is higher. In option 'E' , it states that physicians get to spend very little time (solves 1st condition) and that physicians have to see as many patients as possible. In that case, waiting time increases and therefore patients spend longer duration at the office.

Am I thinking too much.?

Why did you assume that there is an increase in waiting time?

Spending 10 mins on one patient and spending 10 mins on 5 patients doesn't increase the average time of patients.

B clearly states that since the number of diagnosis has increased, patients are getting diagnosed for multiple things now.
_________________

B.
It states that physicians now have wider range of options in diagnosis and treatment to consider with the patients before prescribing.That means more time is required to prescribe than 10 years ago.
So,even though the average time a patient spends with his physician has increased,it is still not enough because the time required to prescribe has also increased.

Sent from my GT-I9300I using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

So the discrepancy is: the physicians think that because of the insurance companies policies, physicians are not able to spend enough time with the patients while they actually are spending more time with the patients. Why the disconnect between what they think and what is the reality? Let us look at the options-
A. Patients are more likely to be in a hurry nowadays and are less willing to wait a long time to see their physician. This should rather decrease the time spent. Incorrect.

B. Physicians today typically have a wider range of options in diagnosis and treatment to consider with the patient before prescribing. Probable contender. Keywords: "wider range of options in diagnosis". Focus on "wider". So since they have more range of options for diagnosis and treatment they might be spending more time with patients. Hold.

C. Physicians are increasingly likely to work in group practices, sharing the responsibility of night and weekend work. Gives no information about time spent with patients. Irrelevant. Incorrect.

D. Most patients would rather trust their physicians than their insurance companies to make decisions about their treatment. Again, no information about actual time spent between patients and physicians. Irrelevant. Incorrect.

E. Since the insurance companies pay physicians a set amount for each office visit, it is to physicians’ financial advantage to see as many Patients as possible. This should have rather decreased the time spent. Incorrect.

Hence, B.

Hi,
I have a doubt here. Doesn't the stimulus say that in the past doctors had more discretion in treating the patients.

So in a way isn't choice B going against that premise.

Doesn't make sense. It is a very confusing passage indeed.

Yes in the past had more discretion. But today they don't have.
I need to make some sense out of it , some logical reasoning in what sense can it be possible.
I thought oh maybe earlier they didn't have standard products, so they had to customize it . But today , there are various standard products available. So now consumer need to think which product he needs rather than what to customize to make it suitable for consumer.
While reading options, I was not sure of my reasoning . But when I reached at B, I could understand the logic reasoning behind these statements.
Yes I was also confused like you that in the end they are spending more time with patients. But I took a step behind and thought of logical reasoning behind insurance companies policy and what happen as a result of these standard products.
Ten years ago physicians were allowed more discretion._ it signifies that now insurance companies don't want physicians to customize the products . But still why physicians spend more time with patience. B bridges the gap that can keep claims of insurance and physicians true. Above all, It makes business sense also in practical scenario. So I was sure of selecting B.

When I read other options , For C , I found I need to assume an extra step that patients spend time with physicians even when physicians work in groups.
Other options were not even close.

I took one learning from GMAT questions that they are not given simply as our English exams. But these questions want to make some practical sense and we need to assume ourselves into such a situation like a decision maker. I often ask myself what would I do if I am in such a situation in which responsibility is on me to make a decision.

Try this question from a practical sense. Assume you are in insurance company and you get this information. what would u do and think your policy was bad - need to change or not applicable in this situation.

I hope it helps.

GMATNinja
I request gmatninja to give explanation for this question

Posted from my mobile device

Premise: In Kantovia, physicians’ income comes from insurance companies, which require physicians to document their decisions in treating patients and to justify deviations from the companies’ treatment guidelines. Ten years ago physicians were allowed more discretion. Most physicians believe that the companies’ requirements now prevent them from spending enough time with patients.

Conclusion/Paradox: Yet the average amount of time a patient spends with a physician during an office visit has actually increased somewhat over the last ten years.


B. Physicians today typically have a wider range of options in diagnosis and treatment to consider with the patient before prescribing.
The reason why physicians spend more time with patients, but it feels like less time is because as physicians are required to document their decisions in treating patients, they have to spend more time doing so. And with a wide variety of treatment options, there's a lot of time into the consideraiton and documentation process; hence why more time is spent, while also the experience is rushed.

Hello
thanks for great explanation
However, still I just don't understand the role of first part of argument in analysis. I mean it was easier to solve only by adhering to that last few sentences, So what is the role of this part exactly? (In Kantovia, physicians’ income comes from insurance companies, which require physicians to document their decisions in treating patients and to justify deviations from the companies’ treatment guidelines. Ten years ago physicians were allowed more discretion.)

GMATNinja KarishmaB

B. Physicians today typically have a wider range of options in diagnosis and treatment to consider with the patient before prescribing.

Resolve the apparent discrepancy between physicians’ perceptions and the change in the actual time spent?

I understand that B is the only option which helps to explain the increased time of patient with Physicians. But the question ask to solve discrepancy between physicians’ perceptions and the change in the actual time spent. I still don't get it why physicians think they are spending less time although in reality they are the ones spending time with patient to select from wider options available.

For example, if i spent 30 min earlier on workout and now after including more exercise in my workout session, i am spending 1 hr. How can my perception be different in both scenerio about the time?

Thanks for your help!

Why option (B) is correct -
B. Physicians today typically have a wider range of options in diagnosis and treatment to consider with the patient before prescribing.

Consider this:
10 years ago when someone went to the physical with a cough, he would assume it to be bacterial infection or flu and give antibiotics and some symptom control medicines.
Today when someone goes, the physician has to consider bacterial, flu, covid, pneumonic, lower lung capacity etc. For each there are multiple treatment paths. The company has given guidelines for each and the physician has consider the treatment path under those guidelines. He may have less discretion though he may not be spend extra time to finally write the prescription.

Answer (B)