Here’s a translation:

Approaches that aren’t comprehensive won’t shrink costs under the current system.

Parsing (A) correctly is important. (A) doesn’t say we can shrink costs using a comprehensive approach – it says other approaches won’t work, which captures the stimulus’ core idea.

The stimulus’ balloon analogy is quite useful here: solutions that don’t address all the spending areas at once will simply make a bulge pop up in whatever areas aren’t addressed.

This is broadly consistent with the idea that “we’re spending too much on health-care stuff,” but there’s no support for (B)’s specific claim about high-paid doctors being too high-paid relative to the overall pool of resources.

The stimulus only discusses how health-care costs react to funding cuts. The concept of new funds being added is never mentioned.

Neither technological advances nor standards of care are mentioned in the stimulus.

For (E) to be correct, the “since” clause needs direct support too. MSS answer choices can’t just tack on additional facts, assert their truth, then come to additional conclusions.

The stimulus gives us no support for the very specific claim that unfilled hospital beds contribute to overhead charges on each patient’s bill.