The overall rate of emphysema has declined 15 percent over

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. No - At first go, I thought that this can be ruled out because it is mentioned that "the overall cost for treating emphysema is approximately equal to what it was 15 yrs ago" . But later I realised that this option actually mentions the "overall cost of health care in Region A" not the "Total health care cost for treating emphysema in region A". Anyways, In both the cases - this option is safely ruled out.

B. Improvements in technology have significantly increased both the cost per patient and the success rate of emphysema care in the past 15 years. Correct - if the Improvements in tech have increased cost per patient and also helped in bringing down the rate of emphysema , this shows the discrepancy between the incidence of emphysema in region A and the cost of caring for emphysema sufferers.

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. - No, Opposite to what is mentioned in the argument. "until eight years ago, at which time it began increasing by approximately two percent per year" , which means seven years ago - it actually started increasing. Another problem with this option is the same as in "A". It does not specifically talk about emphysema rather talks about overall cost of healthcare.

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. - No, The money for research is out of scope unless it provides a solid proof that the money would indeed have been used if it was available

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. - No, If the most expensive-to-treat cases are decreasing the cost of health care should decrease considering the fact that the overall rate of emphysema has declined 15 percent over the last 15 years in region A



Press +1 Kudos if you like my explanation

The discrepancy we are addressing is that on one hand the rate of emphysema is decreasing in a population, but on the other hand the amount of money being spent on treating this disease is about the same. Why would we be spending the same amount of money treating less people?

If you look closely at B, it is saying that technology has been introduced to improve the treatment of emphysema. We would therefore expect the number of sufferers (i.e. the rate) to decrease with time. Ticks the first box, doesn’t it? It also says that this technology is getting more expensive. So it is possible that the decrease in emphysema sufferers is roughly balancing out the rising cost of treating patients. So B is our answer.

Dear, I got the point. even I had the same approach while solving the problem and even got it correct. But during further analysis I realized that it should explain more.

Shouldn't the correct option explain that why there was a decrease in the costs initially and then an increase in the latter half finally ending up at same level as it was initially, while at the same time the RATE OF DISEASE emphysema declined by 15% over the entire period.

Option B only explains that success rate of disease increased but it does not explain that how an increase in cost per patient would result in the pattern of cost variation described in the argument. Ultimately we have to answer the discrepancy.

Please tell me if I am thinking the entire argument in a wrong way. I will appreciate it highly.

Press +1 Kudos if you like my explanation[/quote]

Can anyone explain ?
how to prephase such argument?
i started reading question then after reading below middle information :
"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"

i got confuse and lost.
although, after just reading 'Skientist' prephase of question:
"The discrepancy we are addressing is that on one hand the rate of emphysema is decreasing in a population, but on the other hand the amount of money being spent on treating this disease is about the same. Why would we be spending the same amount of money treating less people? "

i was able to get understand the argument and i got right answer

is middle 'blah blah information' just to misguide test taker?

[/quote]

The discrepancy that we need to address here is that the success rate of disease increased but the overall cost of healthcare for treating emphysema became equal to what it was 15 years ago. The second option is providing a reason why there was in increase in the latter half.

The overall cost of health care after 15 years remains the same [ why it decreased in first half is not mentioned but why it may have increased in second half thereby leading to an overall high cost as it was 15 yrs ago is mentioned in second option - ( Improvements in technology)

I hope this explains.


Press +1 Kudos if you like my explanation

I don't think B is right, because it doesn't have any reason for us to conclude why the Cost came down for 8 years and then went up for the next 7 years. (which is specifically mentioned in the passage)

option D actually answers this specific reason.
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. -
Its very logical to conclude that if Health care companies invest more in research they will increase their prices also.
which happened approx 8 years ago and led to the increase in health care cost.

And the passage has no mention of increase/decrease trend for the disease, hence we don't have to worry whether it increased for the initial 8 years and then went down.

Please help me understand the issues in my explanation, if any.
Thanks.

This is the problem with this argument, it wants the test-taker to fall prey in other parts of the argument. This was pointed above by vmdce.

Regarding answer D, it is illogical to think that a modest increase in technology investment would lead to such an increase in costs. This is not strong enough to explain the reversal in trends in the last years.

i too rejected B since it never gave any explanation as to why the total cost was reducing for the first 8 years and then increasing.
can some expert please help to clarify.

1. overall rate of emphysema has declined 15 percent over the last 15 years in region A.

2. During that period, the total cost of care declined by two percent per year until eight years ago, THEREAFTER INCREASED by approximately two percent per year.

3. 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.OVERALL NO CHANGE IN COSTS HENCE INCORRECT...
B. Improvements in technology have significantly increased both the cost per patient and the success rate of emphysema care in the past 15 years....NOTE AS ON DATE THE TOTAL HEALTHCARE COSTS REMAIN SAME AS 15 YEARS AGO BUT TODAY THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS IS FAR LESS AS IT HAS BEEN DECREASING 15 % IN THESE YEARS....THEREFORE THE COST PER PATIENT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED....ALSO THE success rate of emphysema care HAS INCREASED
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....INFACT IT INCREASED
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.MONEY FOR RESEARCH... IRRELEVANT
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. most expensive-to-treat advanced cases of emphysema.... IRRELEVANT



KUDOS IF YOU PLEASE...

Unless we assume that emphysema is a communicable disease, we can't say that finding a cure reduces cases of emphysema. A cure is not a prevention.
OA B doesn't really explain the drop in emphysema cases, which cannot be the result of better success rate of emphysema care.

I too fell for this trap but the question doesn't ask us to explain the drop in prices for 1st 8 years and the rise of prices thereafter. The question asks

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?

cost per patient has increased because the patients has reduced due to good health care avaialability

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).

Thanks for the explaination Karishma.
Much appreciated

KarishmaB I completely agree with your explaination on option (B).

On analyzing option (B) which says "Improvements in technology have significantly increased both the cost per patient and the success rate of emphysema care in the past 15 years."
It clearly mentions that the cost per patient has been increasing the the past 15 years, which would mean that even though the number of patients are decreasing (as mentioned in the option), the cost is increasing from the past 15 years. And by saying that "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" - aren't we actually assuming this!, which is not actually allowed.

And as far as option (D) is concerned, I agree that the money in research is not in play in the argument and also i guess the decrement in the number of patients with the disease is not a discrepancy in the argument ("The overall rate of emphysema has declined 15 percent over the last 15 years in region A"), its just the increase in the amount of money spent in the treatment of the patients with those patients.

Kindly please help me understand where am I wrong here.
Sajjad1994 egmat KarishmaB

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________