Which statement best describes the cost of health care in the United States?

Choice A reason: Teaching about lead is primary; screening is secondary. This errors per prevention levels. It’s universally distinct, pre-exposure focus.

Choice B reason: Blood lead screening detects exposure early, a secondary strategy. This aligns with public health standards. It’s universally applied, distinctly accurate.

Choice C reason: Referral is tertiary, managing lead toxicity. Screening fits, per nursing. This errors in level. It’s universally distinct, treatment-based.

Choice D reason: Cleanup is primary prevention; screening catches issues. This misaligns with secondary focus. It’s universally distinct, not detection.

Choice A reason: HSV-2 isn’t typically life-threatening like HIV, though it can complicate immunocompromised cases. Gonorrhea, bacterial and treatable, poses less chronic risk. This overstates HSV-2’s severity, as it’s manageable with antivirals, not fatal, making it less accurate for comparison here biologically.

Choice B reason: HSV-2 treatment, like acyclovir, isn’t extremely expensive compared to gonorrhea’s antibiotics. Cost varies by access, but chronicity, not expense, drives its challenge. This overlooks the persistent nature of HSV-2 versus gonorrhea’s curability, misaligning with the core difficulty clinically and practically.

Choice C reason: HSV-2, a virus, is chronic and incurable, residing in nerve ganglia lifelong, causing recurrent sores. Gonorrhea, bacterial, resolves with antibiotics. This persistent, untreatable viral nature makes HSV-2 more challenging, aligning with its clinical management and patient impact distinctly and accurately.

Choice D reason: HSV-2 treatment suppresses outbreaks but doesn’t grant immunity; it’s chronic. Gonorrhea cures fully, preventing recurrence with treatment. This is false for HSV-2, as its latency in nerves ensures potential flare-ups, contrasting sharply with gonorrhea’s resolution biologically and clinically here.