Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The new measures may include screening air travelers for fever when they arrive in the United States from the worst-stricken countries in West Africa, on direct or indirect flights, Schumer said in a statement. He said U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Thomas Frieden told him the agency might adopt some of the recommendations Schumer had made on Ebola screening over the weekend. Those included having the CDC and Customs and Border Protection conduct intense health screening of workers at U.S. ports of entry. The New York Democrat also urged the Department of Homeland Security to create a database of people flying to and from West Africa, which would be shared with hospitals around the country. “The CDC has been doing a very good job thus far in combating the threat, but you can’t be too careful when it comes to stopping a deadly epidemic,” Schumer said in the statement. The outbreak has killed at least 3,439 people out of 7,492 confirmed, probable and suspected cases since it emerged in Guinea in March, in the worst Ebola epidemic on record. Along with Guinea, the worst-hit countries have been Sierra Leone and Ebola. The disease has also spread to Nigeria and Senegal, but is considered contained there. A man who traveled to Dallas from Liberia last week became the first patient diagnosed with the disease on U.S. soil. In Spain, officials reported on Monday that a nurse had become the first person infected with the hemorrhagic virus in Europe. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the administration had confidence in the system as it exists but was working on additional safety protocols that would be announced in the coming days. “The president’s team is hard at work on developing additional protocols for additional screening measures,” Earnest told reporters on Air Force One. Claim: U.S. to require tougher Ebola screening at airports: senator.
[EX A]: U.S. health officials are preparing to require tougher Ebola screening at American airports this week to keep the deadly virus from spreading to this country, Senator Chuck Schumer said on Tuesday.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: No discussion of costs, something we always look for and wish would be provided. As already noted, the story explained that the drug “isn’t a magic bullet. The study showed that 37 percent of women who got weekly injections of it delivered prematurely, compared to 55 percent of women who got injections of a placebo.” Good discussion of concerns and ongoing monitoring of the drug’s safety. The story explains the drug “isn’t a magic bullet. The study showed that 37 percent of women who got weekly injections of it delivered prematurely, compared to 55 percent of women who got injections of a placebo.” No disease-mongering of prematurity or its consequences. The medical director of The March of Dimes was quoted throughout. (Although they are seen as having a very pro-progesterone slant that is not held by consumer/advocacy/health policy/maternity care groups in UK, Australia, and Canada. in those countries surveys of providers uniformly get low utilization responses with the reason stated being need for more data. Similar surveys of US providers (specialty and generalists) show the vast majority use >70% (as opposed to low double digits in more evidence-driven countries) and that mission creep has started. Indications for which it is not tested see regular use in the US.) There was at least the historical perspective on “the last drug thought to prevent premature birth – a synthetic estrogen called diethylstilbesterol, or DES.” The focus of the story is FDA approval of the drug. Good historical context, explaining that “Interestingly, the drug is not new — it’s just taken a long and circuitous route to approval.” It’s clear the story didn’t rely solely on a news release. Claim: FDA Approves First Drug To Prevent Preterm Births
[EX A]: Given that 50% of care is covered by Medicaid and 49% by private payors, the costs for this drug are invisible to the individual. It is administered in clinic or by home health nurses and does not typically have a co-pay structure although patients will sometimes tell providers they can’t afford it. News of new drug approvals can be washed over with giddy hype. But not in this story, which offered perspective, context and restraint.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The story referred to “extra costs women may incur to get childcare and make it to the doctor’s office — plus the costs to a strained healthcare system of ordering more tests.” Not applicable. The story wasn’t about benefits, but rather, the suggested lack of benefit from screening too often. The story did a good job explaining that there can be harm from screening too often – something that often isn’t explained in screening stories: “…any extra screening increases the chance of getting a “false positive” result on a test — meaning the test finds something that doesn’t turn out to be cancer. In that case, women would need more invasive tests to rule out disease, Roland said, and risk “undue harm” from those procedures. “Some of it is, don’t go looking before you need to go looking because you’ll find stuff that you’d rather not find,” said (one observer), who was not involved in the new study. The story did not make clear who was surveyed. Family practitioners? Ob-gyns? There were other issues. The story never fully described the evidence behind the recommendations that “generally call for a three-year wait after normal tests.”  Reuters may have thought that was outside the scope of the current news on the current study, but it would have better informed readers about the quality of the evidence. Then, of course, there’s the confusion over the screening intervals that was addressed in the review summary above. No disease-mongering at play here. An independent expert from the American Society for Clinical Pathology was interviewed – someone not involved in the study. Comparison of screening intervals was at the heart of the story: “There’s really no advantage to annual screening compared to screening every two or three years,” lead author Katherine Roland told Reuters Health. The entire story was about cervical cancer screening being made TOO available too often. The story reminded readers that this type of survey – and its findings – don’t stand alone: “Results from a survey of the same doctors have shown that many also give the HPV test alongside Pap smears to women under 30 — which is not recommended, because HPV is common in young women and often goes away on its own (see Reuters Health story of July 4, 2011. )” It’s clear the story didn’t rely on a news release. Claim: Doctors screen for cervical cancer too often: study
[EX A]:
This story was generally clearly written and delivered an important reminder to women that screening too often isn’t harmless – and that there’s a reason for evidence-based screening guidelines. Unfortunately, the story is confusing in a way that could mislead women about how often Pap smears are recommended. The story cites scenarios of TWO negative Pap smears and asks what the next step should be. “…a woman age 30 to 60 has had two consecutive normal Pap tests but no HPV tests; two normal Paps and a negative HPV test; or a negative HPV test but no recent Pap tests. In all of those cases, guidelines recommend waiting three years before screening the patient again..” But the standard recommendation is THREE negative Pap smears before moving to every 2-3 year screening. The study’s scenarios stipulated that a woman has “a current normal Pap smear result” in addition to the past history above. Readers could be misled, since the story implies that only 2 negative smears are needed (or a single negative HPV) before adopting less frequent testing. The story ended with some sound advice for women: “We need to shift toward the wellness visit as opposed to, ‘You have to come in here every year for a Pap,'” (one expert) said. There are other important preventive interventions that happen during a visit “just for a Pap smear,” such as counseling about smoking cessation, diet, and exercise, and screening for other problems such as sexually transmitted disease and depression. Doctors may be slow to adopt new Pap smear guidelines because the public health message about the benefit of routine preventive visits (what is confusingly termed here a “wellness visit”) has not been strongly articulated.