2. 考研
  3. A few years back, many hospitals in America were embarrassed by revelations that some of their neediest patients, the uninsured,

A few years back, many hospitals in America were embarrassed by revelations that some of their neediest patients, the uninsured,

admin2022-08-26  0
问题     A few years back, many hospitals in America were embarrassed by revelations that some of their neediest patients, the uninsured, were being charged the most. These patients were getting slammed with the full list price for health care while those with insurance got negotiated discounts. The outcry prompted congressional hearings and state inquiries. All not-for-profit hospitals in Illinois have adopted voluntary guidelines, set by the Illinois Hospital Association, to dole out free or discounted care.
    But Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan says that’s not nearly enough. Madigan announced recently that most Illinois hospitals spend less than 1 percent on charitable care. She proposed that hospitals be required by law to spend at least 8 percent of their operating costs on charity: free health care, community clinics. This is a terrible idea. For starters—amazing as this may sound—Madigan hasn’t calculated how much this law would cost hospitals. No overall cost, nor the cost to any single hospital in the state.
    The Illinois Hospital Association says her bill would require 133 hospitals to spend $739 million more a year on charity care. That, the LHA says, would push 45 of those hospitals into the red, and 28 hospitals that already operate at a loss would be pushed closer to bankruptcy. Madigan disputes those figures.
    How did Madigan settle on the magic 8 percent? She cites her office’s investigation of hospitals and a task force she convened. But the task force didn’t issue a report and may never do so. She all but acknowledges that her claim that Illinois hospitals provide a miserly 1 percent in charitable care isn’t the whole story. That figure excludes much of what hospitals absorb, including the gap between what they spend on Medicaid patients and what they receive for that care. The LHA argues convincingly that mandating a high percentage of revenues to be spent on free care ignores the reality that many hospitals operate in the red. Draining more money would weaken hospitals—and encourage cost-cutting in nursing care, equipment or other essentials.
    Why are we talking about charitable giving by hospitals, as opposed to muffler shops, fast-food restaurants or beauty salons? Because most hospitals are tax-exempt by law: They don’t pay any federal, state or local taxes. In return, they’re required to provide services to the needy. But the law doesn’t say exactly how much.
    So they do have a charitable obligation. And some hospitals—even some not-for-profit hospitals— have hefty revenues. It’s useful to see how much they’re giving back to their communities. But the hospitals also have an obligation to stay solvent. No one profits when a hospital closes its doors. Madigan’s proposed mandate carries too much risk.
When mentioning   "She all but acknowledges... isn’t the whole story."    (lines 24, Paragraph 4), the author means that
选项 A、Illinois hospitals were rather miserly in providing medical care.
B、Madigan did not tell the whole story about Illinois hospitals.
C、Illinois hospitals would have to spend more on free medical service.
D、Madigan thought the hospitals spent less than 1 percent on Medicaid patients.
答案D
解析 推理判断题。the whole story意为“全情，详情”，马迪根几乎承认伊利诺斯州医院投入慈善医疗的区区1％可能实际上还并没有这么多，可见D项与之相符。A项是强干扰项，但细节in medical care与原文in charitable care不符，属于偷换概念；B项只是字面理解；C项属过度推断，原文并没有提到伊利诺斯州的医院将不得不在免费医疗方面增加投入。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/aFmZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)