OG 10 Insurance companies are ethical

F1: US Hosps have relied on paying patients to cover up losses from un-reimbursed care.
F2: Almost all paying patients pay by health insurance.
F3: Insurers have started paying below the actual cost of care.

Prephrase: There's no surplus money to cover up losses from un-reimbursed care. Assuming patients don't pay extra money to the hospital which seems quite obvious.

(A) Although the advance of technology has made expensive medical procedures available to the wealthy, such procedures are out of the reach of low-income patients. I don't think this is mentioned in the premises. Out of scope.

(B) If hospitals do not find ways to raising additional income for un-reimbursed care, they must either deny some of that care of suffer losses if they give it. This seems quite obvious and flawlessly true.

(C)Some patients have incomes too high for eligibility for governmental health insurance but are unable to afford private insurance for hospital care. Extra information is brought in, cannot be a conclusion.

(D) If the hospitals reduce their costs in providing care, insurance companies will maintain the current level of reimbursement, thereby providing more funds for un-reimbursed care. Yes, I agree with you, first thought which comes to mind for rejecting this option is that it is predicting. That insurance companies will surely maintain current level of reimbursement is not mentioned in the passage.

mundasingh123 wrote:In find the conclusion questions , could we have conclusions that show hypothetical situations to be true on the basis of the the stimulus

I think it depends on the question, if there is no better answer choice than the one which makes a 'good prediction' then we may choose to go with the hypothetical situations. But the hypothetical situation should be highly feasible and practical i.e. the prediction should be viable to be true.

(E) Even though philanthropic donations have traditionally provided some support for the hospitals, such donations are at present declining. Let's just reject this without explanation.

IMO - B

But OG states that the stimulus provides evidence against D .
The OG is making predictions on the basis of the evidence that insurance companies have paid equal to or less than actual amount as reimbursements .

(D) If the hospitals reduce their costs in providing care, insurance companies will maintain the

current level of reimbursement, thereby providing more funds for un-reimbursed care.

Sorry , I am quite confused here . Is the OA B or D ?

I feel B is way better . There is no causal relation between hospitals reducing the cost and insurance companies maintaining the current insurance levels.

Hi MundaSingh123,

I believe OG is correct upto some extent in their reasoning about D.

F1: US Hosps have relied on paying patients to cover up losses from un-reimbursed care.
F2: Almost all paying patients pay by health insurance.
F3: Insurers have started paying <= actual cost.

Overall one take away from these facts is-

Lets say hospital treated one free and one insured patient. Cost of treatment is 500$ each.
(Lets say actual treatment cost was 250 $ each.)

Before :
Total revenue = 0 + 500 == 500 $ ( no loss to hospital)

After insurer starts limiting funds:
Total revenue <= 500 $ ( probability of loss to hospital)

So overall now there is a possibility that hospital may soon run out of money.

Option B:
(B) If hospitals do not find ways to raising additional income for unreimbursed care, they must either deny some of that care of suffer losses if they give it.

Right on the bull's eye.

D)If the hospitals reduce their costs in providing care, insurance companies will maintain the current level of reimbursement, thereby providing more funds for unreimbursed care.

Lets say they start charging 350$ for each patient.
Total revenue for hospital = 0 + 350 $ = 350 $.

This will sure shot make the hospital bankrupt.

mundasingh123 wrote:United States hospitals have traditionally relied primarily on revenues from paying patients to offset losses
from unreimbursed care. Almost all paying patients now rely on governmental or private health insurance to pay
hospital bills. Recently, insurers have been strictly limiting what they pay hospitals for the care of insured patients
to amounts at or below actual costs.
Which of the following conclusions is best supported by the information above?
(A) Although the advance of technology has made expensive medical procedures available to the wealthy,
such procedures are out of the reach of low-income patients.
(B) If hospitals do not find ways to raising additional income for unreimbursed care, they must either deny
some of that care of suffer losses if they give it.
(C) Some patients have incomes too high for eligibility for governmental health insurance but are unable to
afford private insurance for hospital care.
(D) If the hospitals reduce their costs in providing care, insurance companies will maintain the current level of
reimbursement, thereby providing more funds for unreimbursed care.
(E) Even though philanthropic donations have traditionally provided some support for the hospitals, such
donations are at present declining.

Isnt D true ?
Can we reject D just because its predicting ?
In find the conclusion questions , could we have conclusions that show hypothetical situations to be true on the basis of the the stimulus

Just try to understand the core concern of the argument.
Hospitals rely on paying patients for earning money.
Paying patients rely on gov or priv. insurance companies to make the relevant payment for themselves(patients)
Insurance comp.s are limiting their payments.

So, the main concern for a hospital here is not, how to reduce costs but how to find extra income because insurance companies pay limited amounts.
Op B talks about to find additional ways to generate money in order to offset the insurance companies limitations.