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.

While the story does describe the cost of stenting, it does not provide the cost of the medication for comparison. The story does give the rate of heart attack or death as 19% within 7 years for both the stent and the medication group. Although the study mentions the risk of clotting with drug-coated stents, this is not adequate information on harms. Furthermore, the study does not mention any possible harms of medication. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease. Furthermore, the story clearly states that this study was done on patients at low risk, that is, those with stable heart disease. The story only quotes one cardiologist not associated with the study and gives no rationale for why he was chosen. (Is it because he's in New York and readily available?) The story could have quoted other clinicians or experts who could have provided some valuable perspective on the impact of this new development on the management of heart disease. The story does mention medication as the alternative to stenting. The story clearly states that stenting is very common in the U.S. The story clearly states that stenting is not a new idea. Because the story quotes the lead author of the study and one physician who is not related to the study, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Heart study: Most angioplasties not needed

"The article doesn't mention costs of angioplasty or costs of medications, which presumably must be taken for the rest of one's life. The article does mention that angioplasty is expensive, but does not provide real numbers or comparisons. The story provides absolute numbers of the primary endpoint over a 4-year period — ""17 percent of those given angioplasty and drugs and nearly 16 percent of those given drugs alone had either died, suffered another heart attack or developed heart failure — results considered to be statistically the same."" The story states that there was a worrisome trend toward more heart attacks in people who received late angioplasty compared to those who received just medications, although the story also tells readers that this could have been a statistical fluke or due to chance. However, other harms of the procedure were not discussed, including risks of the procedure itself, including bleeding, infection, or emotional distress/anxiety. The article also does not discuss risks of the alternative, e.g. medications, which have side effects, costs, or inconvenience. But, the story does discuss the main harm found in the study, e.g. a trend toward increased heart attacks. The research is important because it is a randomized controlled trial and the first such trial to be conducted for the clinical situation of late angioplasty in people with few to no symptoms after their heart attack. The story tells readers that enrollment of patients was delayed because ""doctors were unwilling to risk randomly assigning patients to drug treatment alone,"" indirectly stating that the study was a randomized trial. While an astute reader could probably pick up that this was a randomized trial, this fact could have been clearer. In addition, there is little context around this being the first randomized trial for this clinical situation (as opposed to retrospective observational studies), although the story does tell readers that the results were surprising and that they could change guidelines. The story appropriately describes a heart attack, and more importantly, reinforces that early opening of the artery to restore blood flow to the heart after heart attack is still beneficial and that these results don't apply to that population or indeed the majority of people receiving angioplasties. No obvious disease mongering. The article provides an independent source of information from the chairman of the American Heart Association program committee that reviewed the research. The story also provides information from the director of the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but tells readers that this organization largely funded the research, therefore disclosing potential conflicts of interest. The story tells readers that the alternative that was tested in the latest research was medications, including those to lower blood pressure and cholesterol, aspirin, and anti-clotting drugs. The story could have mentioned beta-blockers specifically, since the protective effect of drug treatment may come from this family of drugs, although this is not yet proven. And the story could have been clearer about the course of treatment, e.g. that these medications are generally taken for the rest of one's life. The story tells readers that the usual treatment for people suffering a heart attack is angioplasty, even for a subset of people who weren't treated right away (the study population)/  The article also tells readers that the tendency to perform angioplasty electively (3 to 28 days after the event) was so strong, that recruitment to the study was prolonged in order to find enough patients (and their doctors) willing to participate in the study. It's widely understood that angioplasty and standard drug therapy after heart attack are not new. The article provides independent sources of information not included in the press release."
Study says late angioplasty futile

The deal provides $81 billion for VA medical care to treat 9.3 million veterans, including the $8.9 billion for private care under a law passed last year expanding the Veterans Choice program. Another $11.3 billion is on tap for private care in 2021. Major veterans groups have cautioned against “cannibalizing” VA programs to pay for Choice, which they worry could lead to privatization of VA. The program gives veterans wider access to private care when they have endured lengthy wait times or the treatment was not what they had expected. The price tag could soar as the expanded program takes hold, putting the VA at risk of future budget shortfalls. Democratic presidential contenders including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have urged reinvestment  in the VA over expanded private care options. Former Vice President Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, a mayor of South Bend, Indiana, have said they will roll back or change some of the Trump administration’s rules on Choice. “As the increasing need for medical care by wounded, ill and injured veterans and their family caregivers is being forced to fit under tight budget caps, we are concerned necessary resources could be shifted away from the VA healthcare system, which independent research has shown provides higher quality care than the private sector,” said Joy Ilem, national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans. “While community care programs are vital to fill and supplement VA in many locations, we believe the value to veterans and the taxpayer of every dollar spent in the VA health care system is greater than if it were spent in the community,” she said. House Democrats had pushed for Choice money to be exempt from budget caps, to avoid the risk of cuts to core VA programs as costs grow in the coming years. Ultimately, however, the money was kept under budget caps after the White House resisted. The added money for Choice is part of a 6% increase to the total VA budget for the fiscal year ending next September. It also includes $9.4 billion for mental health care. About 20 veterans die by suicide each day, a rate unchanged during the Trump administration. The spending bill, which still needs Senate approval, also requires the VA to report to Congress within 30 days the reasons for a two-year delay in announcing whether it plans to provide health care coverage for additional Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange. Former VA secretary David Shulkin in 2017 tried to get additional diseases such as Parkinson’s on a VA list of conditions that are tied to Agent Orange, but the White House opposed that recommendation. A National Academies report in 2016 said there was suggestive evidence to link some of the diseases to herbicide exposure. “The VA and the Office of Management and Budget now have 30 days to deliver a plan detailing how they’ll get veterans suffering from Agent Orange exposure the coverage they need,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who pushed the provision.

Budget deal advances VA private care program backed by Trump.