B it is,
A major impediment to universal access to medication is the high cost of patented drugs, which are often specifically required by patients for survival. In an attempt to make such drugs more widely available to patients, one drug company is planning to offer patients a free one-month drug supply for every $1,000 they spend on patented drugs.
Which of the following, if true, most threatens the plan's prospects for success?
A. Many patented drugs are not designed to be used for more than two weeks.
Even if all of them are not designed to be used for two weeks, there might be several of them,so the dosage can span for a month. In any case, we get the benefit because we get the drugs for free. B. The drug company offering free one-month supplies will increase their prices so that the effective cost per dose remains the same.
Correct,If the effective cost remains the same then why on earth will this scheme be beneficial. It would be on the other hand harmful to the patients who do not spend 1000$.This is the one that most damages the plan's prospect of being successful.C. Most patients who depend on patented drugs for survival possess insurance coverage that pays most of the cost of the drugs they require.
I don't care if it pays for most of the cost. I still do get a benefit with the scheme. D. Whenever possible, physicians prescribe drugs that are available in generic alternatives that are not patented.
Irrelevant, what happens if alternatives are not available, In any case the company is providing me with the benefit.E. Patients who suffer from the most severe ailments often require multiple drugs patented by different companies as part of their daily regimen
Maybe they do but does it absolutely make for a case where no patient would spend a 1000 bucks for the patented drug ?