Critical Reasoning

In Kantovia, physicians' income comes from insurance companies, which require physicians to document their decisions in treating patients and to justify deviations from the companies' treatment guidelines. Ten years ago physicians were allowed more discretion. Most physicians believe that the companies' requirements now prevent them from spending enough time with patients. Yet the average amount of time a patient spends with a physician during an office visit has actually increased somewhat over the last ten years.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy between physicians' perceptions and the change in the actual time spent?

A. Patients are more likely to be in a hurry nowadays and are less willing to wait a long time to see their physician.

B. Physicians today typically have a wider range of options in diagnosis and treatment to consider with the patient before prescribing.

C. Physicians are increasingly likely to work in group practices, sharing the responsibility of night and weekend work.

D. Most patients would rather trust their physicians than their insurance companies to make decisions about their treatment.

E. Since the insurance companies pay physicians a set amount for each office visit, it is to physicians' financial advantage to see as many patients as possible.

I think it's B. If it is true, then naturally visits to the doctor would last longer since the doctor has more investigating to do, eliminating possible afflictions.

C is the best option

hello danaj

for what reason C is wrong....

Physicians are increasingly likely to work in group practices, sharing the responsibility of night and weekend work.


i think it also explains the inc in time

You get that "the average amount of time a patient spends with a physician during an office visit has actually increased somewhat over the last ten years". This is why C is not correct, IMHO.

C is about the total time a physician spends at the office, not with the patient. The doctor might spend about eight hours a day at the office (reduced from previous years, when he might have been spending 10 hours because of night duties and weekend shifts), but he will spend about 30 mins with a patient (per consultation).

DanaJ wrote:You get that "the average amount of time a patient spends with a physician during an office visit has actually increased somewhat over the last ten years". This is why C is not correct, IMHO.

C is about the total time a physician spends at the office, not with the patient. The doctor might spend about eight hours a day at the office (reduced from previous years, when he might have been spending 10 hours because of night duties and weekend shifts), but he will spend about 30 mins with a patient (per consultation).

You answer choice above is not shown. Did you choose D ?

IMO B

!!

DanaJ wrote:I think it's B. If it is true, then naturally visits to the doctor would last longer since the doctor has more investigating to do, eliminating possible afflictions.

I understood that Physicians have more restraints on thier ability to consider various treatment options, and thereby do not spend as much time as they used to with thier patients. This is why I say B does not qualify for the right answer.

Please explain

The question does not say that physians feel like they are spending LESS time, it says that physians are not spending ENOUGH time. We are also told that average length of patient visits are LONGER.

The discrepency is that physians are spending more time with patients yet that extra time is not enough - how could that be. There must be a reason why, as of late, the physians need more time than before...

hence B

Hope that helps

IMO B is the correct one

heshamelaziry wrote: You answer choice above is not shown. Did you choose D ?

Actually, my answer is B and it was hidden by the spoiler function, which goes something like this. Just place your mouse on the black portion to see the writing. We use the spoiler function in order to give other users the chance to have a go at the question without "spoiling it"

Regarding your second comment: actually, physicians do not have more restraints today. What B is saying is that they have to eliminate more illnesses before settling for one. This is because (probably) in recent years there have been a lot of newly discovered/categorized diseases. Same goes for medicine: there are more ways of treating something today, so you need to think it over. Does medicine A do a better job than B in this specific case? What's the best dosage?

DanaJ wrote:

heshamelaziry wrote: You answer choice above is not shown. Did you choose D ?

Actually, my answer is B and it was hidden by the spoiler function, which goes something like this. Just place your mouse on the black portion to see the writing. We use the spoiler function in order to give other users the chance to have a go at the question without "spoiling it"

Regarding your second comment: actually, physicians do not have more restraints today. What B is saying is that they have to eliminate more illnesses before settling for one. This is because (probably) in recent years there have been a lot of newly discovered/categorized diseases. Same goes for medicine: there are more ways of treating something today, so you need to think it over. Does medicine A do a better job than B in this specific case? What's the best dosage?

I interpretd the insurance companies restraints as restraints on the doctors to diagnose and examine alternative treatment, but after a second thought i think the restraint is only paperwork and doctors think more time is going to paperwork that could be spent with patients.

Is my interpretaion right ?

Oh, I explained why B is correct... Regarding restraints on doctors: I think that both interpretations are valid. Not only do insurance companies require more paperwork, but they also have a set of relatively strict rules regarding treatment covered. I guess that's what the "restraints" are about. Timing is specifically tackled in the argument though - this is evident in the last two sentences of the argument.

DanaJ wrote:

heshamelaziry wrote: You answer choice above is not shown. Did you choose D ?

Actually, my answer is B and it was hidden by the spoiler function, which goes something like this. Just place your mouse on the black portion to see the writing. We use the spoiler function in order to give other users the chance to have a go at the question without "spoiling it"

Regarding your second comment: actually, physicians do not have more restraints today. What B is saying is that they have to eliminate more illnesses before settling for one. This is because (probably) in recent years there have been a lot of newly discovered/categorized diseases. Same goes for medicine: there are more ways of treating something today, so you need to think it over. Does medicine A do a better job than B in this specific case? What's the best dosage?

I wish all of us ues spoilers even while posting [spoiler]"IMO" [/spoiler]answers so that other users get equal chance to post his answer

Yeah well this is one of the rules of the forum (it's posted in the "Etiquette" sticky thread), but I guess not all of us are familiar with it... Sorry...

And I can't really delete a post/ban a user for not following that rule, can I?