psdeol wrote:
The overall rate of emphysema has declined 15 percent over the last 15 years in region A. During that period, the total cost of care for emphysema sufferers in region A, after accounting for inflation, declined by two percent per year until eight years ago, at which time it began increasing by approximately two percent per year. Now the total health care cost for treating emphysema is approximately equal to what it was 15 years ago.
Which one of the following best resolves the apparent discrepancy between the incidence of emphysema in region A and the cost of caring for emphysema sufferers?
A . The overall cost of health care in region A has increased by seven percent in the last 15 years, after accounting for inflation.
B. Improvements in technology have significantly increased both the cost per patient and the success rate of emphysema care in the past 15 years.
C. About seven years ago, the widespread switch to health maintenance organizations halted overall increases in health care costs in region A after accounting for inflation.
D. The money made available for research into the causes and cures emphysema had been declining for many years until approximately eight years ago, since which time it has shown a modest increase.
E. Beginning about nine years ago, the most expensive-to-treat advanced cases of emphysema have been decreasing in region A at a rate of about five percent per year.
Kindly explain how the original answer is justified in resolving the paradox ?
Responding to a pm:
Paradox:
- The overall rate of emphysema has declined 15 percent over the last 15 years. (So there are fewer cases of emphysema yearly - whether old or new is immaterial)
- Total cost of care for emphysema sufferers declined first and then started increasing.
This is a paradox, right? The number of sufferers are reducing but the total money spent is increasing. It was decreasing initially but is increasing for the past 8 yrs. Immediately what comes to mind is that treatment cost per person probably started increasing 8 yrs ago.
B. Improvements in technology have significantly increased both the cost per patient and the success rate of emphysema care in the past 15 years.
This explains both sides if the argument. Technology has increased the success rate so more people are recovering (and not getting counted in subsequent years). Also, the new technology is more expensive so it is increasing cost per person. So even though there are fewer ill people, the total money spent on them is increasing. As for the 8 year reference, it doesn't matter. Perhaps one aspect of the tech got introduced 8 yrs back and that added to the cost substantially. Exactly how technology changed over 15 years to get the effect, we don't know. But this certainly explains both the aspects of the argument. This is the best answer.
D. The money made available for research into the causes and cures emphysema had been declining for many years until approximately eight years ago, since which time it has shown a modest increase.
This option talks about the money invested in research. It doesn't say anything about the cost of treatment. We may like to believe that increase in research money leads to increase in treatment cost but that is only if the research is successful and the company decides to pass on the research cost to the people.
Also, this doesn't tell you why the instances of the disease started reducing 15 years back. It says that research money was actually declining 15 years ago. Anyway, increased research money does not imply successful research. So we have no clue why there are fewer sick people now.
Hence answer is (B).