instruction:
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.
question:
Paragraph: "The story includes the cost of this test $1,625 and mentions that insurance companies currently don’t cover the cost of the new genetic test for breast cancer. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. It is not clear how this test improves on these current practice as there was no evidence presented about it. The story appropriately expresses caution when presenting the value of this new test to predict a woman’s lifetime risk of developing cancer. There is a wide range of experts interviewed, all of whom express concern about the current available evidence for the predictive value of this test. Most experts advise against women taking this test, and the American Cancer Society does not promote the test. The story provides appropriate caveats for women who are considering this test. Namely, a lower than average score might suggest a woman could forgo screening. Women with a higher than average risk score could experience unnecessary anxiety and possibly choose treatments they do not need (such as prophylactic mastectomy). The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. Additionally, peer-reviewed studies need to be done to determine the best course of prevention if a woman chooses to take the test and discovers she is at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Because the story raised appropriate questions about the quality of the evidence, we give this a satisfactory score. The story lists the annual incidence of new breast cancers and mortality rate. The story is tempered in reporting about a new genetic test which may or may not be another option for women looking to assess their risk. The story mentions that knowing individual risk may inform a woman’s decision whether to increase surveillance and/or take chemoprevention medication, such as tamoxifen. Several leading breast cancer researchers, a member of the American Cancer Society and a spokesperson for the FDA are interviewed for this story. These interviewees do not have a vested interest in this test–unlike Decode’s chief executive, who is also interviewed, mainly promoting his company’s product. Researchers help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered at higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However, the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer  mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. The test discussed in this story has not been studied long enough, nor have results of company studies been subjected to an external review. The focus of the story is a new, widely available genetic test. The story says that any doctor can order this test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there are questions about the validity of tests that have not been subjected to external review. The story notes that there are other genetic tests, but this is one of the first for breast cancer for women who do not carry the BRCA1/2 gene. The story does not mention that there are several other risk calculators to estimate a women’s risk. The story does not rely on the Decode Genetics press release. There is independent reporting and a balanced review of this new genetic test." Claim: Firm says test judges risk for common breast cancers
answer:
"The focus of the story is a newly available genetic test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there is concern about the validity of such tests that have not been subjected to external review. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However,the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. It is not clear how the new genetic test improves on this current practice, as there was no evidence presented. Researchers and clinicians interviewed help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts."


question:
Paragraph: Interior minister Sajid Javid used an exceptional power on Saturday to release medicinal cannabis oil that had been taken from Billy Caldwell, 12, by customs officials at London’s Heathrow Airport. Billy’s mother, Charlotte Caldwell, had been pleading for the medication to be given back because without it her son suffered from life-threatening seizures. “This case .. has shone a light on the use of cannabis medicine in this country and highlighted the need for the government to explore the issue further, and our handling of these issues further,” said Nick Hurd, a junior minister in charge of policing. “As a first step, I can announce today that the government is establishing an expert panel of clinicians to advise ministers on any individual applications to prescribe cannabis-based medicines,” he told parliament. Under British law, cannabis is listed as a schedule 1 drug, meaning that it is not recognized as having a therapeutic value. Schedule 1 drugs can be used for research purposes and clinical trials but only under a Home Office license. “I recognize the need to ensure that the approach to licensing works more effectively,” Hurd said. Billy Caldwell had been receiving medicinal cannabis oil on prescription by his family doctor for more than a year, but supplies ran out after the interior ministry ordered the doctor to stop prescribing it. Charlotte Caldwell and her son, who normally live in Northern Ireland, made a round trip to Canada to buy more supplies, but the oil was confiscated by customs when they re-entered Britain. Billy was hospitalized days later, suffering from seizures. His condition improved after the medicinal cannabis oil was handed back and on Monday he was discharged from hospital. Several members of parliament from different parties voiced support for the Caldwell family and to the idea of loosening the rules on therapeutic uses of cannabis in responses to Hurd’s statement on Monday. Claim: UK signals changes on medicinal cannabis use after epileptic boy's case.
answer:
The British government will look into possible changes to rules on the use of cannabis-based medicines, a minister said on Monday, after an epileptic boy whose medication was confiscated was hospitalized.


question:
Paragraph: Shares of the company traded marginally down at $132.47, after having closed up 1.7% on Monday. (bit.ly/2ZkZGze)    J&J said that the FTC had issued a “civil investigative demand,” or CID, the equivalent of a subpoena to determine if the contracting practices were legal. Pfizer Inc filed a lawsuit against J&J in 2017, saying its rival’s contracts with health insurers for blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis drug, Remicade, were anticompetitive and aimed at blocking sales of Pfizer’s biosimilar called Inflectra. Pfizer said in the lawsuit that J&J had contracted with many insurers to give discounts in exchange for giving preference to Remicade, and to only pay for Inflectra in cases where Remicade proved to be ineffective. Inflectra was approved in 2016 while Remicade went on the market in 1998. Remicade is an infused treatment for chronic autoimmune disorders and costs about $4,000 per dose, or $26,000 a year, Pfizer said in the lawsuit. J&J has denied any wrongdoing and is fighting the Pfizer lawsuit. Pfizer said in a statement that it had received a CID in June. “As Pfizer’s complaint alleges, J&J’s unlawful conduct is designed to prevent Inflectra from being able to compete on its primary point of differentiation – price. Today, Inflectra has an average selling price (ASP) that is more than 22% lower than Remicade,” the company said in a statement. “Despite these facts, J&J has not lost substantial volume or share of sales – counter to what should occur in a competitive market.”  Biosimilars are intended to be lower-cost alternatives to expensive biotech medicines. But since they are made from living cells and it is not possible to make an exact copy of the branded medicine, they are not automatically substituted for the existing branded drug the way a generic drug would be. The drugs treat ailments like rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Claim: J&J says FTC probing efforts to protect arthritis drug Remicade.
answer:

The Federal Trade Commission issued civil subpoenas to Johnson and Johnson in June as part of an investigation into whether contracting practices for its blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis drug, Remicade, violated antitrust laws, the company said in a regulatory filing on Monday.