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 article did not discuss costs. Screening mammograms impose a significant cost on the U.S. health care system and insurers, particularly Medicare. The story detailed the relative harms of earlier mammograms, but did not translate those percentages into absolute numbers. For instance, women who were diagnosed with breast cancer 25 months or more after their last mammogram were “50 percent more likely” to need chemotherapy, “32 percent more likely” to need mastectomy, and “66 percent more likely” to need lymph nodes removed. However, relative risk can be misleading, sometimes inflating numbers to sound scarier than when absolute numbers are used. Also, we don’t know what kind of risk these women had at baseline, so it’s hard to know if they were higher risk. The story made no mention of the harms of earlier or more frequent screening, which have been documented time and time again. More screening can mean more false positives or more finding of breast changes that lead to more testing, such as biopsies, more costs, and more worry. The story did make clear some of the weaknesses of the study: The study found an association but did not prove causality and the study population was limited to a single health care institution. The story also mentions that the findings were presented at a meeting, which means they have not undergone peer-review. The story does not directly engage in fear-mongering. However, some of the quotes advocating for earlier and more frequent screening play into a scenario that breast cancer is lurking in every woman. A discussion of what a woman’s average lifetime risk is would have been helpful. The story quotes the study author and an outside source. The story makes clear that different advisory groups have differing guidelines for what age to start getting mammograms (40 or 50 years old). It would have been nice if the story had included examples of what makes someone higher risk or not (personal cancer history, family history, history of radiation), but we think this was satisfactory. We believe that mammograms are well-known to be widely available. And the earlier and more frequent screening described here is not earlier or more frequent than what many guidelines recommend, so would not be expected to be denied by health insurers. The story makes clear the distinctive aspects of this study —using avoidance of more aggressive treatment regimens as a deciding factor, as opposed to the more extreme avoidance of cancer death. The story goes beyond what was contained in a news release on the presentation at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting. Claim: Earlier Mammograms May Mean Less Need for Aggressive Treatments
[EX A]: This HealthDay news story reports on findings among women diagnosed with breast cancer: those who had longer intervals between mammograms end up getting more aggressive treatments, including chemotherapy and surgery. The story would have been stronger had it described the findings using absolute rather than relative numbers. But, we were glad to see an independent source offer some reservations about the small observational study raised. A final note — the image accompanying the story was laughably unrealistic. Mammograms are the primary screening method for detecting breast cancer. However, when to start getting mammograms and how often to get screened have been subjects of controversy for the past decade. That’s because the data on how to balance risk of developing breast cancer and the risk of harms from screening (unnecessary tests and procedures) are interpreted differently by doctors and other experts. A story that adds new data to the field and that might tip current guidelines one way or the other is newsworthy.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Gov. Brian Kemp said proposed changes to former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act would give individuals and families less expensive coverage options, a particular benefit for those who don’t qualify for federal subsidies to cover premiums. “They’re going to work to reduce costs, make health care more accessible and have better quality in our state,” Kemp said in a statement. Critics say it would drive up insurance costs for older and sicker people. Kemp also wants to offer subsidized coverage to a fraction of Georgia’s uninsured poor if they worked or went to school for 80 or more hours a month. Kemp’s administration projects the expansion would cover 50,000 people, far less than the 400,000 uninsured Georgians who might be covered by the Medicaid expansion originally envisioned by the overhaul. This second proposal, aimed at people earning incomes of up to 100% of the federal poverty level, echoes those made by other states. Federal officials have rejected some similar partial expansions. But it’s the first plan, under which Georgia would take over the federal insurance marketplace and the associated funding that goes with it, that’s drawing national notice. The state would make those federal subsidies available to people who buy health plans that don’t provide the full array of benefits that the Affordable Care Act requires. Passed in 2010, Obama’s signature health care law extended insurance coverage to millions of Americans by expanding Medicaid and subsidizing premiums for individuals and families who make up to four times the federal poverty level. The law — also known as “Obamacare” — allows states to seek waivers from the federal government to change certain provisions, but only if they adhere to strict rules. The Trump administration has loosened those rules, and Kemp’s plan includes three approaches promoted by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in November 2018. Health policy experts say that change would drive up ACA premiums by drawing healthier people to less expensive, skimpier insurance plans. That would leave the ACA with a sicker patient pool. Under Kemp’s plan, Georgia residents would be required to bypass the central HealthCare.gov website to sign up for insurance. Instead, the state would redirect them to a list of approved brokers and insurers where consumers would be able to compare ACA-compliant plans side by side with plans that don’t meet ACA requirements. All plans would have to continue covering preexisting conditions. In addition to the current gold, silver and bronze level plans, Georgia would let insurers offer a new lower tier of benefits, called copper level, which would cover only about half the cost of projected expenses. The current lowest level of bronze covers about 60% of costs. The state says copper level premiums are expected to be 17% lower than bronze level premiums, on average. Georgia also would let insurers offer disease management plans aimed at helping patients manage a particular high-cost disease such as diabetes or HIV and AIDS. State officials would set an overall cap on its own subsidies at $255 million. There is no cap under the ACA, although the state doesn’t project its spending will come anywhere near the cap, even though it projects enrollment will increase by more than 37,000. The governor’s office estimates that the availability of subsidies for pared-down health plans would only increase “Obamacare” premiums by a little more than 1%. State officials say that amount would be more than offset by its intention to pay a portion of insurance companies’ costs to treat their sickest patients, a relatively small group that incurs the biggest bills. The so-called reinsurance program would allow the companies to lower monthly premiums for all customers. Twelve other states have received approval for reinsurance programs, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. State officials expect to hear by August whether Georgia has permission to implement its plans. Claim: Georgia’s Kemp submits bid to remake health insurance market.
[EX A]: Georgia’s Republican governor on Monday submitted twin plans requesting that President Donald Trump’s administration allow changes to federal government subsidies for health insurance.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The Loveland Reporter-Herald reports that Larimer County Department of Health and Environment announced it is the first confirmed case of rabies in a mammal other than a skunk this year. Rabies is most common in skunks and bats but will occasionally cross over into other species. So far this year, Larimer County has the highest confirmed rabies infections in animals across the state with 26 skunks confirmed with rabies. Health officials remind residents to have their animals, including livestock, vaccinated by a licensed veterinarian. This can prevent the spread of the infection to other animals and to humans and can prevent lengthy and costly quarantines if livestock or a pet encounters a rabid animal. ___ Information from: Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, http://www.reporterherald.com/ Claim: Rabies found in steer in Larimer County.
[EX A]:
Officials say a steer in northeast Colorado has contracted rabies.