Reading Comprehension

Many United States companies believe that the rising cost of employees' health care benefits has hurt the country's competitive position in the global market by raising production costs and thus increasing the prices of exported and domestically sold goods. As a result, these companies have shifted health care costs to employees in the form of wage deductions or high deductibles. This strategy, however, has actually hindered companies' competitiveness. For example, cost shifting threatens employees' health because many do not seek preventive screening. Also, labor relations have been damaged: the percentage of strikes in which health benefits were a major issue rose from 18 percent in 1986 to 78 percent in 1989.

Health care costs can be managed more effectively if companies intervene in the supply side of health care delivery just as they do with other key suppliers: strategies used to procure components necessary for production would work in procuring health care. For example, the make/buy decision--the decision whether to produce or purchase parts used in making a product--can be applied to health care. At one company, for example, employees receive health care at an on-site clinic maintained by the company. The clinic fosters morale, resulting in a low rate of employees leaving the company. Additionally, the company has constrained the growth of health care costs while expanding medical services.



Question:
Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the author's view about intervening on the supply side of health care?

(A) Most companies do not have enough employees to make on-site clinics cost-effective.
(B) Many companies with on-site clinics offer their employees the option of going outside the company's system to obtain health care.
(C) The costs of establishing and running an on-site clinic are demonstrably higher than the costs of paying for health care from an outside provider.
(D) Companies with health care clinics find that employees are unwilling to assist in controlling the costs of health care.
(E) Employees at companies with on-site clinics seek preventive screening and are thus less likely to delay medical treatment.

My query:
I don't understand the answer to the question:
According to me it provides no support to the question. Whether an employee gets a treatment early or late, how does it matter?
Also, what's wrong with choice B?
The passage says 'the make/buy decision--the decision whether to produce or purchase parts used in making a product--can be applied to health care' (extracted from passage above) and asks what supports author's view about intervening on the supply side of health care?
Isn't B doing the same thing? Giving employees a choice(take service in the company or outside), like the choice of make/buy decision?(I think it's stupid, but this is what I marked)

OA : E

winniethepooh wrote:Many United States companies believe that the rising cost of employees' health care benefits has hurt the country's competitive position in the global market by raising production costs and thus increasing the prices of exported and domestically sold goods. As a result, these companies have shifted health care costs to employees in the form of wage deductions or high deductibles. This strategy, however, has actually hindered companies' competitiveness. For example, cost shifting threatens employees' health because many do not seek preventive screening. Also, labor relations have been damaged: the percentage of strikes in which health benefits were a major issue rose from 18 percent in 1986 to 78 percent in 1989.

Health care costs can be managed more effectively if companies intervene in the supply side of health care delivery just as they do with other key suppliers: strategies used to procure components necessary for production would work in procuring health care. For example, the make/buy decision--the decision whether to produce or purchase parts used in making a product--can be applied to health care. At one company, for example, employees receive health care at an on-site clinic maintained by the company. The clinic fosters morale, resulting in a low rate of employees leaving the company. Additionally, the company has constrained the growth of health care costs while expanding medical services.



Question:
Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the author's view about intervening on the supply side of health care?

(A) Most companies do not have enough employees to make on-site clinics cost-effective.
(B) Many companies with on-site clinics offer their employees the option of going outside the company's system to obtain health care.
(C) The costs of establishing and running an on-site clinic are demonstrably higher than the costs of paying for health care from an outside provider.
(D) Companies with health care clinics find that employees are unwilling to assist in controlling the costs of health care.
(E) Employees at companies with on-site clinics seek preventive screening and are thus less likely to delay medical treatment.

My query:
I don't understand the answer to the question:
According to me it provides no support to the question. Whether an employee gets a treatment early or late, how does it matter?
Also, what's wrong with choice B?
The passage says 'the make/buy decision--the decision whether to produce or purchase parts used in making a product--can be applied to health care' (extracted from passage above) and asks what supports author's view about intervening on the supply side of health care?
Isn't B doing the same thing? Giving employees a choice(take service in the company or outside), like the choice of make/buy decision?(I think it's stupid, but this is what I marked)

OA : E

The author suggests that a company should MAKE its on health care (through an on-site clinic) rather than BUY its health care (by offering insurance).
The correct answer must show how companies will benefit from MAKING their own health care.

Answer choice E: Employees at companies with on-site clinics seek preventive screening and are thus less likely to delay medical treatment.
According to the passage, employees who do not seek preventive screening have hindered companies' competitiveness. Thus, answer choice E explains how the onsite clinics will benefit companies: the preventive screenings offered by the clinics will help companies stay competitive.

The correct answer is E.

Answer choice B:
The author states that SHIFTING health care costs to employees has HINDERED COMPETITIVENESS. Since B discusses how EMPLOYEES can obtain their health care, it does not support the author's contention that COMPANIES should MAKE their own health care.

Okay, I get that. That was some previous passage info.
Thanks Mitch!

GMATGuruNY wrote:

winniethepooh wrote:Many United States companies believe that the rising cost of employees' health care benefits has hurt the country's competitive position in the global market by raising production costs and thus increasing the prices of exported and domestically sold goods. As a result, these companies have shifted health care costs to employees in the form of wage deductions or high deductibles. This strategy, however, has actually hindered companies' competitiveness. For example, cost shifting threatens employees' health because many do not seek preventive screening. Also, labor relations have been damaged: the percentage of strikes in which health benefits were a major issue rose from 18 percent in 1986 to 78 percent in 1989.

Health care costs can be managed more effectively if companies intervene in the supply side of health care delivery just as they do with other key suppliers: strategies used to procure components necessary for production would work in procuring health care. For example, the make/buy decision--the decision whether to produce or purchase parts used in making a product--can be applied to health care. At one company, for example, employees receive health care at an on-site clinic maintained by the company. The clinic fosters morale, resulting in a low rate of employees leaving the company. Additionally, the company has constrained the growth of health care costs while expanding medical services.



Question:
Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the author's view about intervening on the supply side of health care?

(A) Most companies do not have enough employees to make on-site clinics cost-effective.
(B) Many companies with on-site clinics offer their employees the option of going outside the company's system to obtain health care.
(C) The costs of establishing and running an on-site clinic are demonstrably higher than the costs of paying for health care from an outside provider.
(D) Companies with health care clinics find that employees are unwilling to assist in controlling the costs of health care.
(E) Employees at companies with on-site clinics seek preventive screening and are thus less likely to delay medical treatment.

My query:
I don't understand the answer to the question:
According to me it provides no support to the question. Whether an employee gets a treatment early or late, how does it matter?
Also, what's wrong with choice B?
The passage says 'the make/buy decision--the decision whether to produce or purchase parts used in making a product--can be applied to health care' (extracted from passage above) and asks what supports author's view about intervening on the supply side of health care?
Isn't B doing the same thing? Giving employees a choice(take service in the company or outside), like the choice of make/buy decision?(I think it's stupid, but this is what I marked)

OA : E

The author suggests that a company should MAKE its on health care (through an on-site clinic) rather than BUY its health care (by offering insurance).
The correct answer must show how companies will benefit from MAKING their own health care.

Answer choice E: Employees at companies with on-site clinics seek preventive screening and are thus less likely to delay medical treatment.
According to the passage, employees who do not seek preventive screening have hindered companies' competitiveness. Thus, answer choice E explains how the onsite clinics will benefit companies: the preventive screenings offered by the clinics will help companies stay competitive.

The correct answer is E.

Answer choice B:
The author states that SHIFTING health care costs to employees has HINDERED COMPETITIVENESS. Since B discusses how EMPLOYEES can obtain their health care, it does not support the author's contention that COMPANIES should MAKE their own health care.

Thank you Hunt.

I see that for RC and CR, we need to prethinking/prephrasing the possible answer /direction before going to answer choices. We need to have something before going to answer choices.

I see your prethinking process: "The author suggests that a company should MAKE its on health care (through an on-site clinic) rather than BUY its health care (by offering insurance).
The correct answer must show how companies will benefit from MAKING their own health care. "

after you think as the above lines say, you began to go to answer choices and LOOK FOR SOMETHING MOST SIMILAR TO YOUR PRETHINKING.

is that right?


we wish in the your future posting, you will write more of your thinking process so that we can learn from you.

Thank you Mitch Hunt.

(D) Companies with health care clinics find that employees are unwilling to assist in controlling the costs of health care.

Could somebody explain why D is wrong
If companies find that employees are unwilling to assist in controlling the costs of health care, it gives more reason to companies not to pass the insurance costs on employees and hence move towards opening their own on-site clinics.

resolehtmai wrote:

(D) Companies with health care clinics find that employees are unwilling to assist in controlling the costs of health care.

Could somebody explain why D is wrong
If companies find that employees are unwilling to assist in controlling the costs of health care, it gives more reason to companies not to pass the insurance costs on employees and hence move towards opening their own on-site clinics.

We are concerned with preventive screening of employees and that opening an on-site clinic will benefit the company, since the time required for this will be less. SO that the company can prosper so do employees.

Option D says that "employees are unwilling to assist in controlling costs", then opening of on-site clinics does not make sense here (since on-site clinics are meant to reduce delay in treatment). It is rather out of scope or against what the problem is. Also the author has not spoken anything about employees being unwilling.So i wouldn't but this option