Read the following article from a website.
Ontario is considering two changes that could lower what patients and the province pay for medicine. When a patent on a brand-name drug ends, other companies may sell generic copies with the same active ingredient, often for a fraction of the price. Under the first proposal, pharmacists would have to fill every prescription with the cheapest generic available. Under the second, the province would sign a bulk contract with a single supplier for each generic drug on its list. Officials say the two changes could save about $310 million a year, and a public hearing is set for June 3.
Anacleto Abarca, who speaks for an association of brand-name drug makers, says he believes the plan sends the wrong signal. “For every medicine that reaches patients, several others fail in testing, and someone has to pay for those failures,” Abarca said. “Push prices down too far, and companies will bring new drugs here years after other countries get them.” Filomena Bradshaw, who leads a patients’ rights group, says that argument confuses two different things. “The research was paid for during the patent,” she said. “Once the patent ends, patients should not keep paying for it. A copy is a copy,” Bradshaw added.
Kasimir Aziz, a pharmacist in a small town north of Kingston, says he supports the first change but fears the second. “If the province buys each drug from one factory and that factory has a problem, every shelf in the province could be empty within weeks,” Aziz said. “I want at least two suppliers for every drug on the list.”
Obiageli Babatunde, a family physician in Ottawa, says a small group of patients needs special care. “For some medicines, such as certain epilepsy drugs, switching to a slightly different version can upset a patient whose condition has been steady for years,” she explained. “Doctors should be able to write ‘no substitution’ on those prescriptions without filling in extra forms,” Babatunde said. Bradshaw agrees that such cases are real but rare. “A narrow exception is fine. It should not become a hidden way to keep prices high,” she said.
Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.
Kasimir Aziz’s concerns would likely be supported by 2..
Filomena Bradshaw would likely say that exceptions for some patients 3..
The reporter’s tone can best be described as 4..
What matters to everyone quoted in the article is 5..
The following is a comment by a visitor to the website page. Complete the comment by choosing the best option to fill in each blank.
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Correct Answer: plans to make the province pay less for generic drugs
Why this is correct: Ontario is considering two changes to lower what patients and the province pay for medicine. Every speaker reacts to them.
Passage Reference: Ontario is considering two changes that could lower what patients and the province pay for medicine.
Tips: Check each option against what Abarca, Bradshaw, Aziz and Babatunde say. Drop any option you can find in one person’s words but nowhere else.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a shortage of pharmacists in small towns: Aziz works in a small town, but nobody says there are too few pharmacists.
- a new factory for brand-name medicines: Nobody plans to build a factory.
- a court case over an expired drug patent: Patents are explained, but no court case is described.
Correct Answer: a report of shortages when a single factory closed
Passage Reference: If the province buys each drug from one factory and that factory has a problem, every shelf in the province could be empty within weeks
Why this is correct: Aziz fears that if one factory supplies a drug and has a problem, every shelf could be empty. A real case of shortages after one factory closed would back up his fear.
Tips: Put Aziz’s quote into your own words. Then ask which finding would make it more convincing.
Why the other options are wrong:
- a study showing research costs are rising: Research costs are Abarca’s argument. They have nothing to do with relying on one supplier.
- patients whose health changed after switching versions: This would support Babatunde, who worries about switching some patients. Aziz talks about empty shelves.
- a survey showing patients prefer brand-name drugs: Aziz supports using the cheapest generic. A survey about brand names would not help his case.
Correct Answer: are acceptable if they stay rare
Passage Reference: Bradshaw agrees that such cases are real but rare. ... A narrow exception is fine.
Why this is correct: Bradshaw agrees that such cases are real but rare. She says a narrow exception is fine, as long as it does not keep prices high.
Tips: Read Bradshaw’s lines in every place she speaks. Pick the view that matches what she says, not what another speaker says.
Why the other options are wrong:
- should cover every patient who asks: Bradshaw wants the exception kept narrow. She does not want it open to everyone.
- are a trick invented by drug makers: Bradshaw says the cases are real. She only warns that the exception should not become a hidden way to keep prices high.
- should require extra forms from doctors: Bradshaw says nothing about forms. Babatunde is the one who talks about paperwork.
Correct Answer: clear and explanatory
Passage Reference: When a patent on a brand-name drug ends, other companies may sell generic copies with the same active ingredient
Why this is correct: In the reporter’s own words, you learn what a generic copy is and what the two changes would do. The reporter explains the facts and leaves opinions to the people quoted.
Tips: Look at the writer’s own sentences outside the quotation marks. Decide what attitude those sentences show.
Why the other options are wrong:
- angry at the drug companies: The reporter never criticizes the drug makers. Abarca simply gets space to explain his view.
- worried about patient safety: Babatunde raises a concern about some patients. The reporter does not share a worry of their own.
- amused by the whole debate: Nothing in the reporter’s words is funny or mocking. The issue is described seriously.
Correct Answer: what the changes would mean for patients
Passage Reference: Push prices down too far, and companies will bring new drugs here years after other countries get them. ... Once the patent ends, patients should not keep paying for it. ... every shelf in the province could be empty within weeks ... can upset a patient whose condition has been steady for years
Why this is correct: Abarca warns that new drugs would arrive here later, and Bradshaw says patients should not keep paying. Aziz fears empty shelves, and Babatunde worries about steady patients. Each speaker talks about the effect on patients.
Tips: Ask what Abarca, Bradshaw, Aziz and Babatunde each talk about. Keep the option that every one of them touches.
Why the other options are wrong:
- keeping drug prices as low as possible: Low prices are Bradshaw’s goal. Abarca warns against pushing prices down too far.
- protecting the profits of drug makers: Only Abarca speaks for the drug makers. Bradshaw says patients should not keep paying after a patent ends.
- having more than one supplier per drug: Two suppliers for every drug is Aziz’s request. The other speakers do not mention suppliers.
Correct Answer: $310 million
Passage Reference: could save about $310 million a year
Why this is correct: Officials say the two changes could save about $310 million a year.
Tips: This blank asks for a yearly amount. Find the savings officials expect.
Why the other options are wrong:
- $31 million: The officials’ figure is much higher than this.
- $130 million: The officials’ figure is higher than this.
- $3 billion: The officials’ figure is much lower than this.
Correct Answer: testing
Passage Reference: For every medicine that reaches patients, several others fail in testing
Why this is correct: Abarca says that for every medicine that reaches patients, several others fail in testing.
Tips: The commenter repeats the industry spokesperson’s point about failures. Find the stage where he says those medicines fall short.
Why the other options are wrong:
- early research: Abarca says the medicines fail in testing, not in early research.
- the approval stage: Abarca does not mention approval.
- manufacturing: Abarca does not say medicines fail in manufacturing.
Correct Answer: Kingston
Passage Reference: a pharmacist in a small town north of Kingston
Why this is correct: The article introduces Aziz as a pharmacist in a small town north of Kingston.
Tips: The commenter is placing the pharmacist on the map. Find the city the article names when it introduces him.
Why the other options are wrong:
- Ottawa: Ottawa is where the family physician works, not the pharmacist.
- Sudbury: Sudbury is not mentioned in the article.
- Windsor: Windsor is not mentioned in the article.
Correct Answer: epilepsy
Passage Reference: For some medicines, such as certain epilepsy drugs, switching to a slightly different version can upset a patient whose condition has been steady for years
Why this is correct: Babatunde gives certain epilepsy drugs as her example.
Tips: Find the doctor’s example of a medicine that should not be switched.
Why the other options are wrong:
- asthma: Babatunde does not mention asthma.
- allergies: Babatunde does not mention allergies.
- arthritis: Babatunde does not mention arthritis.
Correct Answer: June 3
Passage Reference: a public hearing is set for June 3
Why this is correct: A public hearing is set for June 3.
Tips: Look for the date of the public hearing.
Why the other options are wrong:
- June 10: This date is not in the article.
- June 17: This date is not in the article.
- June 24: This date is not in the article.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation