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.

[Q]: Paragraph: Chazz Smith told a rally of over 80 people in the Capitol rotunda that his younger cousin had everything, yet opioids still took his life in 2016 . Authorities blamed counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl that looked like generic Vicodin. Smith said Prince’s death shows the power that addiction can hold on anyone. “We’ve lost legends, we’ve lost potential legends, and that’s a shame,” Smith said. The rally preceded a hearing before a House health and human services committee on a bill to require manufacturers and wholesalers that sell or distribute opioids in Minnesota to pay registration fees ranging as high as $500,000 for the biggest companies. The current fee is just $235. The measure is a different approach from the “penny a pill” tax that passed the Senate last year but stalled out in the House amid industry opposition. It would raise about $20 million annually to fund prevention, treatment and education programs, and to support county child protection agencies that have been swamped by the crisis. Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan told the gathering that passing the bill is a priority for Democratic Gov. Tim Walz. Bill sponsors said at a news conference that the industry should pay its fair share for a crisis that it helped create. They pointed out that more than 400 people died of opioid overdoses in Minnesota in 2017, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. “In communities across the state, it appears that this opioid crisis that we’re in really has no end in sight,” said Rep. Liz Olson, a Duluth Democrat. “Without this swift legislative action, there indeed might not be an end. Parents have lost children, teachers have lost students, our first responders are asked to respond to impossible situations, and no other family deserves to go through this.” Other leading sponsors include Rep. Dave Baker, a Republican from Willmar, and Sen. Chris Eaton, a Brooklyn Park Democrat, who have both lost children to opioid overdoses. Baker’s son, Dan, 25, died in 2011 of a heroin overdose after becoming addicted to opiate pain pills for a back injury. Eaton’s daughter, Ariel, was 23 when she died of a heroin overdose in 2007. “I don’t want other families to go through the trauma that I did,” Eaton said. Sen. Julie Rosen, a Republican from Vernon Center, said the manufacturers and distributors have been “kicking and screaming a little bit” but now tell her they want to be part of the solution. “I asked them, ‘What does that look like?’ and I have not received an answer,” she added. “We’re spending billions on an issue you helped create,” Rosen said. “I don’t think we’re asking for a whole lot for the amount that they are shipping and manufacturing for the state of Minnesota, and the amount of deaths that we have.” The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also known as PhRMA, opposed last year’s bill. While the trade group says it supports ”an extensive set of policy recommendations ,” including measures to curb overprescribing, it opposes this year’s bill as well. “Unfortunately, what’s being proposed — taxing legitimately prescribed medicines that patients rely on for legitimate medical needs to raise revenues for the state — ignores evidence-based solutions, sets a dangerous precedent and ultimately won’t help patients and families,” Nick McGee, the trade group’s director of public affairs, said in an email to The Associated Press. Claim: Minnesota lawmakers: Tax drug makers over opioid crisis.
[A]: Lawmakers and activists are making a push to force drug companies to pay more of the costs of the opioid crisis, and they got a boost Wednesday from a cousin of the most famous Minnesotan to die from the addictive drugs, the late rock star Prince.


[Q]: Paragraph: The FDA has set a May 2020 deadline for e-cigarette makers to submit a formal application to keep their products on the market amid its efforts to curb the use of e-cigarette among teens. Reynolds, whose Vuse e-cigarettes deliver nicotine via a cartridge-based vapor system, said it had provided the health regulator with over 150,000 pages of documentation, including information on the composition, design and manufacturing process associated with its product, as well as safety data. The company said it had also worked with a team of more than 100 people to prepare the filing, including multiple regulatory experts and scientists. U.S. regulators are exploring ways to monitor the manufacturing and marketing of e-cigarettes following a rise in use of these products among teens, and a recent outbreak of a mysterious lung illness linked to vaping that has claimed at least 29 lives. Vaping devices such as Juul’s, which vaporize liquid containing nicotine, have borne the brunt of the regulatory crackdown globally. The Trump administration also outlined plans in September to remove all flavored e-cigarettes from store shelves, pointing the finger at sweet flavors that had drawn millions of children into nicotine addiction. Claim: Reynolds American files for FDA review of e-cigarette.
[A]: British American Tobacco Plc unit Reynolds American Inc said on Friday it had filed for a review of its Vuse e-cigarettes by the U.S. Food and Drug administration, giving it a lead over its main rival Juul Labs Inc.


[Q]: Paragraph: "The article reports that Avastin costs up to $55,000 per year. The reporter does a decent job of describing the results, reporting that 12 percent of Avastin patients in the study developed blood clots, a ""30"" percent higher risk than those who did not take Avastin. This formulation, which appears in the abstract of the study, provides both absolute and relative risks. But ideally the report would have provided a more apples-to-apples comparison of absolute risk, stating that 12 percent of Avastin patients developed blood clots, compared to 8 percent of controls. The story earns an unsatisfactory rating, though, because it reports the findings incorrectly. The study shows the risk linked to Avastin to be 33 percent greater, not 30 percent. Further, the story fails to indicate the differences in risk for different types of cancers, which vary considerably. This is a significant omission. The story exaggerates the risks associated with the use of Avastin. The opening lines note the seriousness of the clots. The study notes a 12% incidence of venous clots in patients treated with Avastin–yet fails to note that only about half required treatment. This leaves the reader with an incorrect belief about the true risk. By overstating the risks of serious blood clot, the story could leave patients who may benefit from treatment with an inaccurate impression of risk vs. benefit. The article is based on an analysis of previous research published in The Journal of the American Medical Association. The study author is quoted saying the results are more powerful than individual studies because it takes into account the results of 15 high-quality papers involving almost 8,000 patients. The story might have added that results of meta-analyses are often criticized, and rarely considered definitive, because they combine data from studies that used different methologies. This failure is significant in that it may add an undue degree of importance to the analysis. The article doesn’t exaggerate the severity or prevalence of the cancers Avastin treats. The story cites the study itself, the lead author, a company spokesperson, and one independent clinician. This is adequate sourcing for a story of this length. The story mentions, at least briefly, that Avastin treats cancer via a different mechanism from traditional chemotherapies. But the story falls short of a satisfactory rating by mentioning, only at the end and very briefly, that most Avastin patients also use conventional chemotherapy–and are therefore exposed to all of those side effects as well. This raises, but doesn’t answer, the fundamental question of the overall benefit and overall risk of adding Avastin to treatment. A reader exits the story with an unsettling piece of information that should have been put in context earlier. The article makes clear that Avastin is widely available to and used by cancer patients. The story explained the relative new-ness of the drug. With several sources used, it’s a safe bet this story didn’t rely largely on a news release." Claim: FDA ‘black box’ warning advised for cancer drug Avastin
[A]:
This story about the risk of blood clots linked to the cancer drug Avastin does a decent job of conveying the key findings. But it suffers from at least one significant flaw. On the positive side, the story explains the findings in a clear and fair way, with adequate detail, sourcing and context. The story is based on a credible study on a topic relevant to many readers. The reporter follows several practices of good medical reporting, as the ratings show. Having said that, reporting the increased risk as 30 percent rather than 33 percent is an inexplicable, fundamental error. There are two additional problems, however. 1. Some reporting at the end of the story takes up the question of total benefit and total risk for patients who take Avastin, but this could have been explored further. The bottom line most patients and physicians care about isn’t the risk of one side effect. It’s whether taking the drug improves survival. It’s true the meta-analysis did not take up that question. But the story could have explored this matter more thoroughly on the readers’ behalf, and would have put that reporting more at the core of the story, not as going-away thoughts at the end. 2. The report fails to distinguish the differences in risk among the different types of cancer for which Avastin is used. The study itself included this information, and it is important for the reader to know. This is a significant omission.