2020考研英语阅读理解精读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）：本文选自Economist；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿的是2004年真题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

本文主要讨论了药品价格管制对于药品行业，尤其是新药开发的影响。第一、二段分别提出了两个相反的观点，其中美国的药品公司认为价格管制会抑制药品创新，而莱特教授则持相反意见；第三段说明这场争论存在的问题，即人们过于注重药品源产地而忽视了当今的全球化趋势；第四段则分析了美国制药业的特殊情况；第五、六段说明了欧洲国家正在采取新的措施，而美国制药业反对这种强制措施。

词汇注释

patent /ˈpeɪtənt/ v. 给予…专利权；取得…的专利权

pharmaceutical /ˌfɑːməˈsjuːtɪkl/ adj. 制药的；药品的

trigger /ˈtrɪgə/ v. 引发，引起

denounce /dɪˈnaʊns/ v. 指责，谴责

tiff /tɪf/ n. 口角，争执；生气

fallacy /ˈfæləsi/ n. 错觉；误解；谬见

spectacle /ˈspektəkl/ n. 景象；奇观，壮观

token /ˈtəʊkən/ n. 标记；标志，象征

scenario /sɪˈnɑːrɪəʊ/ n. 方案；设想

reimburse /ˌriːɪmˈbɜːs/ v. 赔偿；偿还

lobby /ˈlɒbi/ n. 游说议员的团体

难句突破

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.”

主体句式：That, says PhRMA, ...is because...

结构分析：本句有较多难点。首先主体句式是一个倒装结构，主语是PhRMA，其他内容都是says的宾语。第二个难点是间接引语和直接引语的交杂。PhRMA说的内容都是says的宾语，但这个宾语从句的主体结构是间接引语that is because...，而在price regulations seen in other countries后面则加入了直接引语，注意引号里面是三个动词并列的结构，即chill... impede... and trigger...。

句子译文：设在华盛顿的制药行业游说团体美国药品研究与制造商协会（PhRMA）认为，因为其他富国采取的价格管制措施“阻碍创新，使病人无法使用最新药物，致使创新者不得不选择到公共政策更为宽松的国家去进行创新”。

题目分析

1. C 细节题。第二段提到“斯坦福大学客座教授唐纳德·莱特所做的最新研究指出，即使面临价格管制，欧洲医药企业的创新性也高于美国企业”，这说明价格管制并没有影响制药行业的创新性，因此C是正确选项。A和B文中并没有提到，故排除。原文并没有指出价格管制能够促进创新性的发展，故排除D。

2. A 细节题。本题可以采用排除法。B选项对应于文章第一段提到的信息“很多富国已经采取措施来控制价格”，因此是正确的表述。文章第一段和最后一段都提到美国的制药行业游说团体反对价格控制措施，对其进行抵制，所以C选项的表述也是正确的。文章对实施价格控制措施进行了讨论，但是没有给出定论，所以D的表述也是正确的。尽管文章第一段提到“采取价格控制措施的欧洲则坐享其成”，但第三段的研究结果则表明那些欧洲的制药公司并不是所谓的“free riders”，所以A选项的表述不够准确。

3. D 语义题。从文章第三段我们可以发现，沃顿商学院的帕特里夏·当宗认为这一观点没什么说服力，因为大部分医药巨头都在多个国家设有实验室，而且经常从其他国家的生物公司获取开发中的药品，而斯坦福大学的艾伦·加伯发现，企业不仅为本地市场开发药品，更要面对全球市场，两位专家所持观点的基本立场是相同的，也就是现在的医药开发都是全球化运作，因此可以推出连接二者观点的“by the same token”意为“同样意义上”，因此D是正确答案。

4. B 细节题。本题对应于文章的倒数第二段，该段第一句话就提出“我们甚至还有理由认为价格改革可能会促进创新”，后面举例来说明这一点。A、D两项显然是错误的，关键是B、C两项，其内容表述都是正确的。但是C选项的表述只是这些政府推出的做法，并不是原因，而B选项则是更好地说明了原因，即政府通过价格管制能够鼓励企业更好地保证新产品质量，从而也就是鼓励了创新。

5. C 细节题。本题主要对应于文章最后三段。倒数第三段中提到了Medicare，但是这里只是用于举例说明的一个假设，与A选项的描述并不相符，因此A不正确。倒数第三段开头提出“当然美国是个例外”，但是后面又指出“根据斯坦福伯恩斯坦金融研究公司的结论，在改革方案和措施不是很激进的情况下，价格改革不会抹杀创新”，这说明价格管制促进创新这个观点在美国是否适用还没有定论，因此B也不正确。文章最后一句话指出“对比较疗效的评价是一种间接的价格控制——但同样可以鼓励创新”，但这里并不是说疗效比较分析就是鼓励创新的最好方法，所以D也不正确。文章第一段就提到了设在华盛顿的行业游说团体PhRMA，最后一段又提到美国医药企业游说团体，说明美国医药行业充分通过政治手段来维护自己的利益，所以C是正确的说法。

参考译文

全球的政府都在想尽办法来对付不断上涨的医疗费用，尤其是药品价格。很多富国已经采取措施来控制价格，一些美国左翼人士也对此表现出积极支持的态度。但是美国的制药公司却认为，正是因为美国的制药公司拥有为其专利药品定价的自由，因此美国才能成为世界新药研发的生力军。而相比之下，采取价格控制措施的欧洲则坐享其成。设在华盛顿的制药行业游说团体美国药品研究与制造商协会（PhRMA）认为，因为其他富国采取的价格管制措施“阻碍创新，使病人无法使用最新药物，致使创新者不得不选择到公共政策更为宽松的国家去进行创新”。

斯坦福大学客座教授唐纳德·莱特所做的最新研究指出，即使面临价格管制，欧洲医药企业的创新性也高于美国企业。这种观点与2006年同一本期刊的另一篇较有影响力的文章正好相反，该文章检验了1982年至2003年注册药品的地理来源，结论是，有利的公共政策确实帮助美国成为了第一大医药国家。PhRMA迅速反驳了莱特先生的研究，坚持认为莱特的研究曲解和低估了美国国内创新的影响。

这场争论暴露了从国家的角度来看全球化药业时容易产生的两个误解。双方都把新药的产生归结于特定的源头国家（即那些最先开发出新药的公司的总部所在地）。但是沃顿商学院的帕特里夏·当宗认为这一观点没什么说服力，因为大部分医药巨头都在多个国家同时拥有实验室，而且经常从其他国家的生物科技公司获取正在开发的药品。同样，斯坦福大学的艾伦·加伯发现，企业不仅为本地市场开发药品，更是着眼全球市场。所以由于出口的诱惑，特定国家的价格管制不会阻碍当地的创新。

当然美国是个例外，其药品销量占到全球的40%以上。如果美国国会实行价格管制，那么会产生怎样的影响？如果下降幅度较大，世界其他地方新药研发者的获利也将减少。但是根据斯坦福伯恩斯坦金融研究公司的结论，在改革方案和措施不是很激进的情况下，价格改革不会抹杀创新。报告分析了如果政府针对老年人的医保计划Medicare中药品的价格降低20%可能会产生的影响，其结论是大型医药企业每股收益将因此下降3%~8%。

我们甚至还有理由认为价格改革可能会促进创新。英国和德国正在率先开展对药品疗效的比较和成本—收益分析，目的是以企业表现来决定对新药的资助力度。杨森药厂说服英国健康服务部门接受其昂贵的抗癌药物万珂，同时承诺若药品达不到预期疗效，将予以退款。

美国医药企业游说团体强烈反对强制推行类似的方法。一些人猜测，美国医药界反对的原因是害怕很多价格昂贵且获利丰厚的新药被发现物非所值。但是就像当宗女士所指出的那样：“对比较疗效的评价是一种间接的价格控制——但同样可以鼓励创新。”