2020考研英語閱讀理解精讀100篇：Unit 88

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.

篇章剖析

本文主要討論了藥品價格管制對于藥品行業(yè)，尤其是新藥開發(fā)的影響。第一、二段分別提出了兩個相反的觀點，其中美國的藥品公司認為價格管制會抑制藥品創(chuàng)新，而萊特教授則持相反意見；第三段說明這場爭論存在的問題，即人們過于注重藥品源產(chǎn)地而忽視了當今的全球化趨勢；第四段則分析了美國制藥業(yè)的特殊情況；第五、六段說明了歐洲國家正在采取新的措施，而美國制藥業(yè)反對這種強制措施。

詞匯注釋

patent /?pe?t?nt/ v. 給予…專利權(quán)；取得…的專利權(quán)

pharmaceutical /?fɑ?m??sju?t?kl/ adj. 制藥的；藥品的

trigger /?tr?g?/ v. 引發(fā)，引起

denounce /d??na?ns/ v. 指責，譴責

tiff /t?f/ n. 口角，爭執(zhí)；生氣

fallacy /?f?l?si/ n. 錯覺；誤解；謬見

spectacle /?spekt?kl/ n. 景象；奇觀，壯觀

token /?t??k?n/ n. 標記；標志，象征

scenario /s??nɑ?r???/ n. 方案；設(shè)想

reimburse /?ri??m?b??s/ v. 賠償；償還

lobby /?l?bi/ n. 游說議員的團體

難句突破

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.”

主體句式：That, says PhRMA, ...is because...

結(jié)構(gòu)分析：本句有較多難點。首先主體句式是一個倒裝結(jié)構(gòu)，主語是PhRMA，其他內(nèi)容都是says的賓語。第二個難點是間接引語和直接引語的交雜。PhRMA說的內(nèi)容都是says的賓語，但這個賓語從句的主體結(jié)構(gòu)是間接引語that is because...，而在price regulations seen in other countries后面則加入了直接引語，注意引號里面是三個動詞并列的結(jié)構(gòu)，即chill... impede... and trigger...。

句子譯文：設(shè)在華盛頓的制藥行業(yè)游說團體美國藥品研究與制造商協(xié)會（PhRMA）認為，因為其他富國采取的價格管制措施“阻礙創(chuàng)新，使病人無法使用最新藥物，致使創(chuàng)新者不得不選擇到公共政策更為寬松的國家去進行創(chuàng)新”。

題目分析

1. C 細節(jié)題。第二段提到“斯坦福大學客座教授唐納德·萊特所做的最新研究指出，即使面臨價格管制，歐洲醫(yī)藥企業(yè)的創(chuàng)新性也高于美國企業(yè)”，這說明價格管制并沒有影響制藥行業(yè)的創(chuàng)新性，因此C是正確選項。A和B文中并沒有提到，故排除。原文并沒有指出價格管制能夠促進創(chuàng)新性的發(fā)展，故排除D。

2. A 細節(jié)題。本題可以采用排除法。B選項對應于文章第一段提到的信息“很多富國已經(jīng)采取措施來控制價格”，因此是正確的表述。文章第一段和最后一段都提到美國的制藥行業(yè)游說團體反對價格控制措施，對其進行抵制，所以C選項的表述也是正確的。文章對實施價格控制措施進行了討論，但是沒有給出定論，所以D的表述也是正確的。盡管文章第一段提到“采取價格控制措施的歐洲則坐享其成”，但第三段的研究結(jié)果則表明那些歐洲的制藥公司并不是所謂的“free riders”，所以A選項的表述不夠準確。

3. D 語義題。從文章第三段我們可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，沃頓商學院的帕特里夏·當宗認為這一觀點沒什么說服力，因為大部分醫(yī)藥巨頭都在多個國家設(shè)有實驗室，而且經(jīng)常從其他國家的生物公司獲取開發(fā)中的藥品，而斯坦福大學的艾倫·加伯發(fā)現(xiàn)，企業(yè)不僅為本地市場開發(fā)藥品，更要面對全球市場，兩位專家所持觀點的基本立場是相同的，也就是現(xiàn)在的醫(yī)藥開發(fā)都是全球化運作，因此可以推出連接二者觀點的“by the same token”意為“同樣意義上”，因此D是正確答案。

4. B 細節(jié)題。本題對應于文章的倒數(shù)第二段，該段第一句話就提出“我們甚至還有理由認為價格改革可能會促進創(chuàng)新”，后面舉例來說明這一點。A、D兩項顯然是錯誤的，關(guān)鍵是B、C兩項，其內(nèi)容表述都是正確的。但是C選項的表述只是這些政府推出的做法，并不是原因，而B選項則是更好地說明了原因，即政府通過價格管制能夠鼓勵企業(yè)更好地保證新產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量，從而也就是鼓勵了創(chuàng)新。

5. C 細節(jié)題。本題主要對應于文章最后三段。倒數(shù)第三段中提到了Medicare，但是這里只是用于舉例說明的一個假設(shè)，與A選項的描述并不相符，因此A不正確。倒數(shù)第三段開頭提出“當然美國是個例外”，但是后面又指出“根據(jù)斯坦福伯恩斯坦金融研究公司的結(jié)論，在改革方案和措施不是很激進的情況下，價格改革不會抹殺創(chuàng)新”，這說明價格管制促進創(chuàng)新這個觀點在美國是否適用還沒有定論，因此B也不正確。文章最后一句話指出“對比較療效的評價是一種間接的價格控制——但同樣可以鼓勵創(chuàng)新”，但這里并不是說療效比較分析就是鼓勵創(chuàng)新的最好方法，所以D也不正確。文章第一段就提到了設(shè)在華盛頓的行業(yè)游說團體PhRMA，最后一段又提到美國醫(yī)藥企業(yè)游說團體，說明美國醫(yī)藥行業(yè)充分通過政治手段來維護自己的利益，所以C是正確的說法。

參考譯文

全球的政府都在想盡辦法來對付不斷上漲的醫(yī)療費用，尤其是藥品價格。很多富國已經(jīng)采取措施來控制價格，一些美國左翼人士也對此表現(xiàn)出積極支持的態(tài)度。但是美國的制藥公司卻認為，正是因為美國的制藥公司擁有為其專利藥品定價的自由，因此美國才能成為世界新藥研發(fā)的生力軍。而相比之下，采取價格控制措施的歐洲則坐享其成。設(shè)在華盛頓的制藥行業(yè)游說團體美國藥品研究與制造商協(xié)會（PhRMA）認為，因為其他富國采取的價格管制措施“阻礙創(chuàng)新，使病人無法使用最新藥物，致使創(chuàng)新者不得不選擇到公共政策更為寬松的國家去進行創(chuàng)新”。

斯坦福大學客座教授唐納德·萊特所做的最新研究指出，即使面臨價格管制，歐洲醫(yī)藥企業(yè)的創(chuàng)新性也高于美國企業(yè)。這種觀點與2006年同一本期刊的另一篇較有影響力的文章正好相反，該文章檢驗了1982年至2003年注冊藥品的地理來源，結(jié)論是，有利的公共政策確實幫助美國成為了第一大醫(yī)藥國家。PhRMA迅速反駁了萊特先生的研究，堅持認為萊特的研究曲解和低估了美國國內(nèi)創(chuàng)新的影響。

這場爭論暴露了從國家的角度來看全球化藥業(yè)時容易產(chǎn)生的兩個誤解。雙方都把新藥的產(chǎn)生歸結(jié)于特定的源頭國家（即那些最先開發(fā)出新藥的公司的總部所在地）。但是沃頓商學院的帕特里夏·當宗認為這一觀點沒什么說服力，因為大部分醫(yī)藥巨頭都在多個國家同時擁有實驗室，而且經(jīng)常從其他國家的生物科技公司獲取正在開發(fā)的藥品。同樣，斯坦福大學的艾倫·加伯發(fā)現(xiàn)，企業(yè)不僅為本地市場開發(fā)藥品，更是著眼全球市場。所以由于出口的誘惑，特定國家的價格管制不會阻礙當?shù)氐膭?chuàng)新。

當然美國是個例外，其藥品銷量占到全球的40%以上。如果美國國會實行價格管制，那么會產(chǎn)生怎樣的影響？如果下降幅度較大，世界其他地方新藥研發(fā)者的獲利也將減少。但是根據(jù)斯坦福伯恩斯坦金融研究公司的結(jié)論，在改革方案和措施不是很激進的情況下，價格改革不會抹殺創(chuàng)新。報告分析了如果政府針對老年人的醫(yī)保計劃Medicare中藥品的價格降低20%可能會產(chǎn)生的影響，其結(jié)論是大型醫(yī)藥企業(yè)每股收益將因此下降3%~8%。

我們甚至還有理由認為價格改革可能會促進創(chuàng)新。英國和德國正在率先開展對藥品療效的比較和成本—收益分析，目的是以企業(yè)表現(xiàn)來決定對新藥的資助力度。楊森藥廠說服英國健康服務部門接受其昂貴的抗癌藥物萬珂，同時承諾若藥品達不到預期療效，將予以退款。

美國醫(yī)藥企業(yè)游說團體強烈反對強制推行類似的方法。一些人猜測，美國醫(yī)藥界反對的原因是害怕很多價格昂貴且獲利豐厚的新藥被發(fā)現(xiàn)物非所值。但是就像當宗女士所指出的那樣：“對比較療效的評價是一種間接的價格控制——但同樣可以鼓勵創(chuàng)新?！?