The proposed regulation of medical insurance will do little to reduce

Question

The proposed regulation of medical insurance will do little to reduce health care costs for consumers. Even though the bill limits the amount doctors can charge per regular visit, it doesn't restrict what they can charge for special procedures, nor does it restrict the number of times a doctor can see a patient for the same problem. Therefore, instead of charging the patient once, the doctor can bill the patient several times, and the overall costs will not decrease.

The author's argument against the new legislation is based on:

A) suggesting that special procedures are often done when less expensive procedures would work just as well.

B) pointing out a loophole in the proposed regulation that will permit doctors to continue to charge patients the same amount of money.

C) implying that regulation of the health care industry is impossible.

D) suggesting that patients are unable to determine what appropriate health care costs are for any given medical problem.

E) suggesting that regular office visits are more costly than special procedures.

Source: 800Score

Sajjad1994 · Accepted Answer

Official Explanation

The author’s argument is that the legislation will not reduce costs for the consumer because doctors will still
be able to charge patients the same amount of money as they can charge without the restrictions, choice  B .

Choice A  is not discussed in the author’s argument, so we can eliminate this choice.

The author may or may not believe that regulation is impossible, we cannot tell from this argument, so  choice C  is not correct.

Choice D  is incorrect, because the author does not suggest anything about what the patients are able to do, only what the doctors are able to do, in this case, charge multiple times.

We cannot deduce  Choice E  from the statement; indeed, the implication is that special procedures are more costly than are the regular visits.

Answer: B

guptarahul · Answer

B seems to be right ..? Pointing out a loophole in the proposed regulation that will permit doctors to continue to charge patients the same amount of money. KUDOS

singhabhijeet · Answer

A) suggesting that special procedures are often done when less expensive procedures would work just as well.
 Author has indicated the special procedures, which Dr. suggest but there is not comparison / statement given regarding less expensive procedures.

B) pointing out a loophole in the proposed regulation that will permit doctors to continue to charge patients the same amount of money.

This seems more to be a conclusion. Doesn't bridge the gap between bill and general practice by doctors.

C) implying that regulation of the health care industry is impossible.
 No such thing is mentioned in statement.
 
D) suggesting that patients are unable to determine what appropriate health care costs are for any given medical problem.
 Yes, this may be one option. Patients can't validate if doctor is suggesting a necessary treatment or not. 
 
E) suggesting that regular office visits are more costly than special procedures.

No, such statement is given in the argument.

IMO: D

TheMechanic · Answer

It has been clearly stated that doctors exploit the loop hole of the new policy. Option B rehashes the same point. B should be the answer. It's a defender type of assumption.

pushpitkc · Answer

The conclusion from the argument is that  instead of charging the patient once, 
the doctor can bill the patient several times, and the overall costs will not decrease.

From our initial understanding of the argument, the authors concludes that the patient will not benefit from this new legislation.
The reason for that is that a loophole will enable the doctor to claim similar, if not more fees.

A) suggesting that special procedures are often done when less expensive procedures would work just as well.
 This is an irrelevant choice, because the question is not pertaining to any procedure. 
It is a generic statement for the money being charged for medical treatment. 
B) pointing out a loophole in the proposed regulation that will permit doctors to continue to charge patients the same amount of money.
 This in the correct answer.  
C) implying that regulation of the health care industry is impossible.
 Out of scope. 
D) suggesting that patients are unable to determine what appropriate health care costs are for any given medical problem.
 Here, the patients knowledge of the cost is not at question. Irrelevant 
E) suggesting that regular office visits are more costly than special procedures.
 This is an irrelevant comparison, which is never discussed in the argument.

chesstitans · Answer

I am not sure whether this question will appear in the actual gmat. This question is not hard at all. Test takers can see from the choices that an assumption question can have such option choices.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The proposed regulation of medical insurance will do little to reduce

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The proposed regulation of medical insurance will do little to reduce

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards