《考研英語(yǔ)閱讀理解100篇 基礎(chǔ)版》第7章　醫(yī)藥類(lèi) Unit 88

Governments around the world are struggling to cope with the rising cost of health care，and of drugs in particular．Many rich countries have resorted to price controls，and some on the American left advocate them noisily．But drug firms maintain that America，where they are free to price patented pills largely as they please，is the engine of global pharmaceutical innovation，while price-controlling Europeans are free riders．That，says PhRMA，the industry's lobby based in Washington，D.C.，is because price regulations seen in other rich countries“chill innovation，impede patients’ access to the newest cutting-edge medicines，and trigger innovators to relocate to countries with more progressive public policy.” 
A new study，written by Donald Light，a visiting professor at Stanford University，claims that European drug firms are more innovative than American ones，in spite of price controls．That flies in the face of an influential paper published in the same journal in 2006，which examined the geographic origins of drugs registered between 1982 and 2003 and concluded that favourable public policies had helped propel America to the top of the list．PhRMA has rushed to denounce Mr Light's study，insisting it gives a“distorted picture” and understates the impact of“home-grown innovation”. 
The tiff exposes two fallacies that come from looking at a globalised industry through national spectacles．Both sides attribute new drugs to a specific country of origin（based on the location of the headquarters of the firm that first launches them）．But Patricia Danzon of the Wharton Business School argues that this makes little sense when most big drug firms have laboratories in several countries and often acquire drugs under development from biotechnology firms located elsewhere．By the same token，firms develop drugs for the global market，observes Alan Garber of Stanford，not just for the local one．So the imposition of price caps in a given country will not necessarily quash innovation there，thanks to the lure of exports. 
The exception to this rule，of course，is the United States，which alone accounts for over 40% of global sales．So what would happen if America's Congress imposes price regulations? If the cuts are swinging，then the prize for inventors everywhere will be reduced．But short of such a radical scenario，pricing reform would not kill off innovation，according to Sanford Bernstein，a financial-research firm．It has analysed the likely impact of a cut of 20% in the prices Medicare，the government health scheme for the elderly，pays for its drugs．It concluded that the earnings per share of big pharmaceutical firms would drop by 3-8%. 
There is even reason to think that pricing reforms may boost innovation．Britain and Germany are pioneering comparative reviews of drugs’ effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses aimed at reimbursing firms for new drugs based on how well they perform．Janssen-Cilag persuaded Britain's health service to accept Velcade，its expensive cancer drug，by offering a money-back guarantee if it did not work as well as promised. 
The American pharmaceutical lobby is violently opposed to making such an approach compulsory．Some suspect that its opposition stems from the fear that many expensive and profitable pills would be found to be of dubious value．But as Ms Danzon points out，“Comparative-effectiveness reviews are an indirect form of price control—but one that is consistent with encouraging innovation.” 
注（1）：本文選自Economist； 
注（2）：本文習(xí)題命題模仿的是2004年真題Text 1。 
1．How does the new study mentioned in Paragraph 2 support government's health-care reform? 
A) It says the government should impose exact price controls of drugs. 
B) It claims that American drug companies should imitate their European counterparts. 
C) It indicates that price control does not reduce the innovativeness of drug making. 
D) It suggests that price control can promote the innovativeness of drug making. 
2．Which of the following is NOT true concerning price control of drugs? 
A) The measure has contributed to many free riders. 
B) The measure is agreed upon by many rich countries. 
C) The measure has encountered resistance from drug firms. 
D) The measure has aroused a controversy that is yet to be settled. 
3．The expression“by the same token” （Line 5，Paragraph 3）most probably means ______. 
A) in the same way 
B) symbolically 
C) by the same expression 
D) in the same sense 
4．Why does the author say that price control may promote innovation? 
A) Because it works in Britain and Germany. 
B) Because firms are encouraged by government to guarantee better performance. 
C) Because firms will be reimbursed for new drugs based on how well they perform. 
D) Because Britain's health service would like to try new drugs. 
5．Which of the following is TRUE according to the text? 
A) Medicare may reduce pharmaceutical firms’ earning per share in future. 
B) The price-control-for-innovation approach is not applicable to US. 
C) The American pharmaceutical industry utilizes politics for its own benefit. 
D) Comparative-effectiveness analysis is the best way to encourage innovation.