instruction:
Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
question:
Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea virus (PEDv), which causes diarrhea, vomiting and severe dehydration is transmitted orally and through pig faeces. While older pigs have a chance of survival, the virus kills 80 to 100 percent of piglets that contract it. The total number of confirmed cases has increased to 2,692 in 23 states as of the week ended January 25. Nearly 40 percent of the cases, 1,006, were confirmed in Iowa, the top U.S. pork producing state. As defined by the USDA, each diagnostic case could represent multiple animals at either a single farm site or several locations. The USDA's NAHLN released its latest PEDv data on Wednesday. (here)  There are no official figures for pigs lost to the PEDv - which does not affect humans - but up to 4 million pigs may have died from the virus, according to industry analyst estimates. Additionally, the virus was confirmed in Canada last week. PEDv has spread to a fourth farm in the Canadian province of Ontario, the provincial government said on Wednesday, despite the hog industry’s efforts to stop it by disinfecting delivery trucks and clothing used on farms. PEDv has forced the U.S. hog industry to increase its biosecurity measures and has fueled concerns hog supplies will slump in the spring and summer.
answer:
U.S. pig virus cases see biggest weekly rise since PEDv found.


question:
We were surprised to see that a story that covered as much ground as this one did somehow missed costs. The competing story by NBC spelled out the costs. The story nicely explained that while one of the new studies showed, as expected, that following the updated statin guidelines did increase the number of people who would be treated with statins, following the guidelines would apparently not have saved a significant number of people from dying or having a heart attack or stroke. The story said, “Among the people eligible for statins under the old guidelines, 6.9 percent had a heart attack or stroke or died from coronary disease over the ensuing nine years. Among those eligible for statins under the new guidelines, the figure was 6.3 percent, almost as high. That suggests that the new guidelines do not lead to treatment of many more people who do not need statins.” At the same time, the story noted that the new guidelines “over all did a better job in discriminating between those who should and should not get statins.” It said that “only 1 percent of participants deemed ineligible for statins under the new guidelines had a heart attack or stroke over nine years, compared with 2.4 percent of those ineligible under the old guidelines.” While an NBC story also used absolute numbers in talking about the potential benefits in terms of heart attacks, we liked the greater level of context provided in the Times piece. Nevertheless, we think it would have been useful for the Times to include the Number Needed to Treat in its discussion of benefits —  this is an easy-to-understand metric that was reported in the study. In addition, we question the Times’s contention that the new criteria “do not lead to treatment of many more people who do not need statins.” According to the study, approximately 94% of both guideline groups did not have a cardiovascular event, and yet the new criteria now extend the use of statins to much larger number of people. In light of such findings, it’s unclear that the new criteria don’t lead to unnecessary treatment for more people as the Time states. We wish the story had explored this result more thoroughly. We thought that NBC did a better job detailing some of the potential harms from statin use, but we give the Times credit here for framing the story as a discussion of risks vs. benefits and making it clear that experts critical of the new guidelines believe that they “would lead millions of additional people to take statins, exposing them to potential side effects such as muscle pain or damage with little to gain.” Covering two studies in little more than 1,000 words is already a feat. Doing so while bringing in enough context to explain the caveats to the study is an order of magnitude greater. Compared to the NBC piece, the Times did a superior job showing that, despite the enthusiasm in some quarters of the scientific community, the two studies did not settle the debate over whether statins should be more widely prescribed. The story did not engage in disease mongering. The story sought out and made good use of independent sources. It mentions that the guidelines were widely criticized and links to some printed criticisms made at the time. It quotes a variety of supportive and critical researchers regarding their opinions on the new research. The story did not make any reference to dietary changes, lifestyle changes, or exercise. The story made it clear that statins are widely prescribed. One in four Americans take them by some estimates. The story established that the findings of the studies were not novel but rather were in keeping with earlier findings about statins. Because it contains comments from independent experts, we can be sure the story did not rely excessively on any news release.
answer:
2 Studies Back Guidelines for Wider Use of Statins


question:
"In his effort to pass a health care overhaul, President Barack Obama has enlisted help from a close ally — his wife, Michelle. On Sept. 18, 2009, the first lady gave a speech about the importance of health care reform to women, and cited several reasons she thinks the current system is gender-biased. This line caught our attention:     ""Women are affected because, as we heard, in many states, insurance companies can still discriminate because of gender,"" she said. ""And this is still shocking to me. These are the kind of facts that still wake me up at night. ... In some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she's been the victim of domestic violence."" Health reform bills under consideration by Congress would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-exisiting conditions, an issue we've already  explored  ; we've also examined how  pregnancy can sometimes be  a basis to deny coverage, and how pre-exisiting conditions already lead to  health care rationing  by private health insurers. But we'd never heard domestic abuse could count as a pre-existing condition, so we decided to look into the claim. The issue first came to light in 1994, when a Pennsylvania woman was denied health, life and mortgage disability insurance because of domestic violence, according to the Women's Law Project. That group, along with the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, began advocating for legislation to expressly prohibit the practice. Since then, most states, including Pennsylvania, have adopted laws prohibiting the practice. But, as Mrs. Obama said in her speech, denying coverage due to a history of domestic abuse is still legal in some states. Those states are Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming, and the District of Columbia, according to the National Women's Law Center. The claim has become a  popular talking point  for groups supporting health care reform such as the Service Employees International Union. (It's been discussed so much recently that Arkansas, which had no prohibition, this year passed a law prohibiting discrimination against domestic violence victims.) A  Huffington Post story  about the laws last week prompted several states and insurance companies to say that the laws have been changed or that the companies don't treat domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. The North Carolina situation is a matter of some disagreement. Although the Women's Law Center says the practice is still allowed, state officials say they interpret the laws to mean it is not. Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney told the  Jackson Free Press  that he wanted to explore whether insurance companies were taking advantage of the law:     ""I've got to get some of my lawyers to do some research on this, but we have only six mandated (conditions that must be covered) in our state statues, and we have 25 or more optional coverages, but domestic abuse doesn't seem to be one of them. ... The whole situation is bad. Let's say a woman works with a company that had Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and she gets beat up in her house and Blue Cross says 'we're not covering you because getting beat up is your pre-existing condition.' That's terrible."" Meanwhile, Wyoming Department of Insurance staff attorney James Mitchell told the  Huffington Post  that state law does not expressly prohibit insurers from using domestic abuse as grounds to deny coverage, though he'd found no cases of the practice in his state. Mitchell's response raises an important point: Just because it's legal in some states for insurance companies to cite domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, it doesn't mean that insurance companies are actually taking advantage of the loophole. Back in the 1990s there was evidence that the practice was widespread. In 1994, a House Judiciary Committee panel conducted an informal survey and found that eight of the 16 largest insurers in the country used domestic violence as a factor in deciding coverage. And a year later, the Insurance Commission of Pennsylvania reported that a formal survey showed that 24 percent of accident, health and life insurers took domestic violence into account when deciding whether to issue and renew insurance policies. But that data is more than 10 years old, so we asked Lisa Codispoti, senior counsel for the National Women's Law Center, if insurance companies are still denying health care coverage based on domestic violence history. Examples are hard to come by, she said, because people who get coverage through an employer don't usually face exclusions about pre-existing condititions. Only people who apply for individual coverage would, she said. ""It's such a small number of people who apply for individual insurance,"" she said. ""And it's not like insurance companies have to tell you why you're being denied coverage."" Indeed, underwriting standards are private, said Nancy Durborow, health projects coordinator for the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, making it difficult for groups such as hers to find out how widespread the practice still is. ""This is very secretive stuff,"" she said. A spokesman for the association representing insurance companies told us he's not aware of any insurers that deny women coverage based on history of domestic abuse. And the group supports a proposal by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners that would fully prohibit the practice. ""No one should be denied coverage because they are victims of domestic abuse,"" said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans. We find that the first lady is correct that ""in some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she's been the victim of domestic violence."" Putting aside the disputed North Carolina law, there still are several other states — including Mississippi and Wyoming — that have no specific laws prohibiting the practice. It's important to note that we couldn't find this was happening on a widespread basis — or even just a little bit."
answer:

In some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she's been the victim of domestic violence.