《考研英语阅读理解100篇 高分版》 Unit 10 - TEXT ONE
- TEXT ONE
- 题目分析
- 参考译文
Revisions in the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (S. 2029) will now make it a Class D federal felony for physicians to accept more than $25 annually in gifts or other rewards from pharmaceutical companies or biological product and medical device manufacturers.
The revised bill, introduced last fall by Senators Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin, requires full disclosure of gifts, through a Department of Health and Human Services online system, by both companies and individual physicians, and it revokes caps on non-disclosure penalties for companies.
The legislation targets offending individual physicians, hospitals, schools, and other medical institutions that deal directly with patients. It also makes it a federal offense for medical industries to circumvent customary gift-giving practices through third parties, such as lawyers and insurance companies, or via “educational” events.
It reverses earlier legislation that would have preempted more stringent physician sunshine laws passed by the states. The previous version of the law limited penalties to $10000 for non-disclosure, and $100000 for companies that “knowingly” fail to disclose gifts to physicians. The new bill establishes a lower limit for fines, but not an upper limit, and requires that that penalties make into account histories of gift-giving, product specifics and histories, overall corporate revenue, and other variables, before appropriate fines can be assessed.
Patients' rights and medical ethics groups, like the New England Medical Ethics Commission in Boston, are exultant. “It's not like the A. M. A or [pharmaceutical trade association] PhRMA were ever going to comply with their own stated standards,” says Patty Williams, Director of Communications for the commission. Williams is referring to the American Medical Association's 1991 guidelines on gifts to physicians from industry, which stemmed a tide of blatant gift-giving in the 1960s, but have been criticized for allowing new byways for abuse: free lunches and dinners, travel and honoraria, and the hemorrhaging of complimentary pens, coffee mugs, and other product-related paraphernalia into doctors' offices.
“What we really need is a sea change in the medical profession wherein physicians realize that it is not ok to get gifts or fill our offices with advertisements for products. It demeans patient care,” says Mount Sinai School of Medicine professor Dr. Joseph Ross. While programs like the Prescription Project, which scrutinize pharmaceutical company information and sales practices, have been in place for several years in states like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, their effect is limited by the willingness of doctors to abide by ethical standards.
“This will definitely make it a lot harder for us to get out products to customers,” says Sampson Browning, spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which anticipates large losses of revenue due to the new legislation.
“I haven't paid for lunch since last February, and I think I ate at home that day,” says Dr. Bruce Arbogast, Director of Pine Grove Medical Center in Chicago. “Do the math. Do you think I can afford to say no when the drug reps knock on my door?” From now on, doctors will have to, or risk up to ten years imprisonment.
1. Which one of the following statements is NOT true of the revised bill?
[A] The revised bill gives those who have direct connections with patients a serious warning.
[B] The revised bill withdraws the upper limits on non-disclosure penalties for companies.
[C] The revised bill is more severe since there is neither lower nor upper ultimate for the penalty.
[D] The revised bill requires full disclosure of gifts via an online system operated by the Department of Health and Human Services.
2. What's the main function of the revised bill?
[A] It requires that penalties take into account histories of gift-giving, product specifics and other variables, before appropriate fines can be assessed.
[B] It makes some contributions to the patients' rights and medical ethics.
[C] It ends the tide of blatant gift-giving in the 1960s.
[D] It completely changes the medical profession.
3. What Patty Williams wants to express is that _____.
[A] the earlier legislations are useless
[B] he agrees with the revised bill
[C] the revised bill will not be under criticism
[D] any new methods to get benefits from medical profession will be prevented by the revised bill
4. Why does Sampson Browning take a pessimistic attitude towards his Company's future?
[A] Because most of its revenue comes from those ways the revised bill prohibits.
[B] Because its products can't be sold to the customers any more.
[C] Because the revised bill sets a lot of limits for his company.
[D] Because he thinks there are no other ways for his firm to make money.
5. From what Dr. Bruce Arbogast says, we can infer that _____.
[A] before last February, he always had lunch for free
[B] he can reject any drug salesmen
[C] to some extent, the revised bill has worked
[D] since the punishment is so severe, he and other doctors wouldn't take risks
1. Which one of the following statements is NOT true of the revised bill?
[A] The revised bill gives those who have direct connections with patients a serious warning.
[B] The revised bill withdraws the upper limits on non-disclosure penalties for companies.
[C] The revised bill is more severe since there is neither lower nor upper ultimate for the penalty.
[D] The revised bill requires full disclosure of gifts via an online system operated by the Department of Health and Human Services.
1. 关于这部修正法案，下列哪个陈述是错误的？
[A] 这部修正法案给那些与病人直接打交道的人提出了严重警告。
[B] 这部修正法案撤销了对不公开信息的公司的惩罚上限。
[C] 由于这部修正法案既没有惩罚下限，也没有惩罚上限，所以相对来说更为严厉。
[D] 这部修正法案要求通过卫生与公众服务部的在线系统，全面公开送出或接受的礼品。
答案：C
分析：细节题。文章第三段提到：该法案锁定的是那些与病人直接打交道的医生、医院、学校和其他医疗机构。换句话说，也就是给这些人和机构提出了严重警告，因此选项A说法正确。第二段最后一句提到：该法案还撤销了对公司隐瞒行为的惩罚上限，与选项B意思相同而说法不同。文章第四段提到：新的法案降低了罚款金额下限，但上不封顶，可见，并非没有下限，只是有所降低。因此，选项C说法不正确。第二段提到：要求公司和医生个人均通过卫生与公众服务部的在线系统，全面公开其送出或收受的礼品。因此，选项D说法正确。故正确答案为选项C。
2. What's the main function of the revised bill?
[A] It requires that penalties take into account histories of gift-giving, product specifics and other variables, before appropriate fines can be assessed.
[B] It makes some contributions to the patients' rights and medical ethics.
[C] It ends the tide of blatant gift-giving in the 1960s.
[D] It completely changes the medical profession.
2. 该修正法案的主要作用是什么？
[A] 修正法案要求在确定罚款金额前，包括送礼历史、礼品详情和其他的可变因素都要纳入考虑范围。
[B] 修正法案对保卫患者权利以及维护医德做出了一些贡献。
[C] 修正法案遏制了20世纪60年代公然送礼的风潮。
[D] 修正法案彻底改变了整个医学行业。
答案：B
分析：细节题。文章第四段提到：修正法案要求在确定罚款金额前，包括送礼历史、礼品详情和来历、公司总收益所得和其他的可变因素都要纳入考虑范围。但这并非该修正法案的主要作用，而只是其中的一项规定。因此，选项A不符合题意。第五段提到：病人权利和医学伦理团体，像位于波士顿的新英格兰医疗职业道德委员会，感到非常高兴。由此可见，该法案对保卫患者权利以及维护医德有一定作用。选项B正确。根据文章第五段可知，是美国医学协会1991年颁布的准则遏制了20世纪60年代公然送礼的风潮，而非该修正案，选项C主体搞错，因此不正确。第六段提到，约瑟夫·罗斯医生希望医疗行业能够发生翻天覆地的变化，而不是该修正法案已经改变了整个医疗行业，选项D以偏概全，因此说法不正确。故正确答案为选项B。
3. What Patty Williams wants to express is that _____.
[A] the earlier legislations are useless
[B] he agrees with the revised bill
[C] the revised bill will not be under criticism
[D] any new methods to get benefits from medical profession will be prevented by the revised bill
3. 帕蒂·威廉姆斯想要表达的意思是_____。
[A] 之前的法案都没用
[B] 他赞同修正法案
[C] 修正法案将不会受到批评
[D] 有了修正法案，任何新的想要从医疗行业获得好处的方式都将被禁止
答案：B
分析：推断题。第四段和第五段讲述了之前的其他法案的弊端，但是帕蒂·威廉姆斯并没有说其他法案一点儿作用都没有，因此，选项A不正确。文章第五段开头提到，对于该项法案，波士顿的新英格兰医疗职业道德委员会感到非常高兴。而帕蒂·威廉姆斯正是此委员会的传讯总监，因此这也代表了他的意思，选项B正确。第五段提到，之前的法案因为促使新的旁门左道的滥用而备受争议。但是这部修正法案在之后的实施过程中会出现什么状况我们也不得而知，因此无法得出“不会受到批评”的结论，更无法得知该项修正法案是否可以禁止一切从医疗行业捞取好处的旁门左道。故选项C、D错误。因此，正确答案为选项B。
4. Why does Sampson Browning take a pessimistic attitude towards his Company's future?
[A] Because most of its revenue comes from those ways the revised bill prohibits.
[B] Because its products can't be sold to the customers any more.
[C] Because the revised bill sets a lot of limits for his company.
[D] Because he thinks there are no other ways for his firm to make money.
4. 为什么桑普森·勃朗宁对他公司的未来持悲观态度？
[A] 因为公司大部分收入都来自修正法案禁止的行为。
[B] 因为他的公司的产品再也不能向顾客出售了。
[C] 因为修正法案给他的公司带来很多限制。
[D] 因为他认为他的公司没有其他的赚钱途径。
答案：C
分析：细节题。第七段提到，礼来制药公司发言人桑普森·勃朗宁却说：“这无疑会使我们公司对客户的产品销售更加困难。”该公司预测，其财政收入将会因这项新法案而损失巨大。选项A文中并未提及。桑普森·勃朗宁说新法案会阻碍向顾客出售产品，并非再也不能，因此，选项B太过绝对，不正确。选项C是对桑普森·勃朗宁所说内容的整体概括，最全面得体。选项D文中并未提及，而且公司赚钱的途径并非只有一条，只是盈利多少的问题。因此，选项D不正确。故正确答案为选项C。
5. From what Dr. Bruce Arbogast says, we can infer that _____.
[A] before last February, he always had lunch for free
[B] he can reject any drug salesmen
[C] to some extent, the revised bill has worked
[D] since the punishment is so severe, he and other doctors wouldn't take risks
5. 从布鲁斯·阿伯加斯特医生的话中，我们可以推断出_____。
[A] 去年二月份之前，他的午餐总是免费的
[B] 他能拒绝任何一个药品推销员
[C] 修正法案在一定程度上已经起了作用
[D] 既然惩罚措施如此严厉，他和其他医生将不会冒险去触犯法律
答案：C
分析：推断题。最后一段布鲁斯·阿伯加斯特医生说：“自去年二月份开始，我就没有再为午餐开支了。我想那天我在家吃饭了。”这说明修正案在一定程度上已经起了作用，他已经不再接受别人的好处（被请吃午餐）而选择在家吃饭。因此，正确答案为选项C。
《医生报酬阳光法案》（S. 2029）中的修订部分现在规定，如果医生每年从医药公司或者生物制品以及医疗设备生产商那里收受价值超过25美元的礼物或者其他报酬，将被联邦定为D级重罪。
去年秋季，爱荷华州的共和党参议员查克·格拉斯利和威斯康星州的民主党参议员赫伯·科尔提出了修订法案，要求公司和医生个人均通过卫生与公众服务部的在线系统，全面公开其送出或收受的礼品。该法案还撤消了对公司隐瞒行为的惩罚上限。
这部法案锁定的是那些与病人直接打交道的医生、医院、学校和其他医疗机构。对于医疗行业照例送礼，却通过第三方规避自己责任的行为，也被视为触犯了联邦法律，第三方可能是律师和保险公司，或者是通过“教育”活动。
该法案推翻了早期法律。早期法律会优先于各州颁布的更为严格的医生阳光法案。之前的法律将不公开信息的行为的最高处罚金额限定为一万美金，对故意隐瞒给医生礼品的公司的最高处罚金额限定为十万美金。新的法案降低了罚款金额下限，但上不封顶，并要求在确定罚款金额前，包括送礼历史、礼品详情和来历、公司总收益所得和其他的可变因素都要纳入考虑范围。
病人权利和医学伦理团体，像位于波士顿的新英格兰医疗职业道德委员会，感到非常高兴。“因为它不像美国医学协会或［医药商业行业协会］药品与制造商协会那样总是按照自己的标准行事。”委员会传讯总监帕蒂·威廉姆斯这样说道。威廉姆斯指的是美国医学协会1991年颁布的行业向医生送礼的准则，这个准则遏制了20世纪60年代公然送礼的风潮，却因为促使新的旁门左道的滥用而备受争议：免费的午餐和晚餐、旅游、谢礼以及源源不断送往医生办公室的赠品，如钢笔、咖啡杯和其他与产品有关的大量用品。
“我们真正需要的是医疗职业翻天覆地的变化，医务人员能意识到收受礼物或者在办公室里摆满产品广告都是不好的行为，这有辱我们的天职：照顾病患。”西奈山医学院教授约瑟夫·罗斯医生说。像处方计划等一些项目，会仔细检查制药公司的信息以及销售惯例。尽管它们已经在马萨诸塞和宾夕法尼亚等州运行了几年了，但其效果却因医生是否愿意恪守职业道德而受到影响。
礼来制药公司发言人桑普森·勃朗宁却说：“这无疑会使我们公司对客户的产品销售更加困难。”该公司预测，其财政收入将会因这项新法案而损失巨大。
“自去年二月份开始，我就没有再为午餐开支了。我想那天我在家吃饭了。”芝加哥派恩·格罗夫医疗中心主管布鲁斯·阿伯加斯特医生说：“想想看，你觉得当医药推销员敲响我家的门时，我能拒绝得了吗？”从现在起，医生们将不得不拒绝，否则，他们要面临长达10年的牢狱之灾的风险。
