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.

Ex Input:
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.

Ex Output:
2 Studies Back Guidelines for Wider Use of Statins


Ex Input:
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services awarded a no-bid contract to the Missouri Primary Care Association. The agreement will pay the organization $125,000 a year to focus on getting more adolescents to receive at least five vaccines, including influenza, hepatitis A and HPV. Contract talks began before health officials warned last week that a hepatitis A outbreak in the state could grow worse if it spreads to urban areas. Health officials say the state has recorded 414 cases of the virus since September 2017. In previous years, only about 10 cases were reported annually.

Ex Output:
State awards contract to boost hepatitis A vaccination rate.


Ex Input:
In its latest “report card,” the American College of Emergency Physicians said such reduced access earned the nation a “D+” — that’s down from the overall “C-“ grade from the group’s last report in 2009. Shortages and reduced hospital capacity make it more difficult to access emergency care, the group said. It also warned about the impact on disaster preparedness. While the report does not measure the actual quality of care provided, it does offer a snapshot of national and state policies affecting emergency medicine as seen by providers. Washington, D.C., was ranked the highest in the report, earning a “B-“ grade, while Wyoming ranked last and was the only state to earn an overall failing grade of “F.”  The group’s task force looked at scores of measure in five major categories — access to care, quality and patient safety, liability, injury prevention and disaster preparedness — and relied on data from the Centers for Disease Control and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, among others. The report comes just as the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, comes into full effect this year. The 2010 law aims to expand access to health insurance and reduce the nation’s healthcare costs, but it has become a political flashpoint amid a troubled rollout of the federal insurance exchange website. While the physician’s report does not factor in all of the effects of the law — its grades are based on data from early 2013 — emergency rooms could be used even more as more Americans gain insurance coverage under Obamacare, it said. Some health experts have predicted that increasing the number of insured patients should reduce pressure on hospital emergency rooms because access to regular doctor care will improve, something that is hoped would prevent chronic conditions from spiraling out of control or help catch other problems before they worsen. But insurance coverage could also lead those who might have held off going to the emergency room to seek care, said Jon Mark Hirshon, an emergency medicine doctor and researcher at the University of Maryland who oversaw the group’s report card. Newly insured people also may have a hard time finding a regular doctor who accepts their plan, he said. “On top of that, emergency departments are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If I have a primary care provider but it’s 9 o’clock at night on a Friday and they’re closed, then people come to the emergency department,” Hirshon told Reuters. The group is asking for congressional hearings to probe whether the law puts “additional strains” on emergency rooms. Already, beds for patients have fallen from a rate of 358 per 100,000 people four years ago to about 330 beds per 100,000 people now, the report said. Wait times have increased to a median of 4.5 hours compared to four hours in 2009. Despite the dismal U.S. grade given by the group, it noted that policies and infrastructure varied widely by state. States with the best emergency care include Massachusetts, Maine, Nebraska and Colorado, while Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico and Arizona rounded out the bottom, just above Wyoming. States are also still grappling with the uninsured. By law, hospitals must provide emergency care regardless of patients’ ability to pay. Under Obamacare, states can expand access to Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance plan for the poor. Data shows that Medicaid patients use emergency rooms as much as other insured patients, but several recent studies have shown that Medicaid patients utilize them more than the uninsured. One study this month showed Oregon patients given Medicaid through a lottery increased their emergency room use by 40 percent compared to those not offered Medicaid. “We have to be leaner and more efficient, but it just becomes more and more challenging,” Hirshon said.

Ex Output:

Doctors say pressure on ERs may rise, give U.S. failing grade.