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: As part of President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law, the efforts center around more than 360 accountable care organizations (ACOs), which are networks of doctors, hospitals and other providers specially organized to help move Medicare away from traditional fee-for-service medicine. The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said preliminary data show that the ACOs produced $380 million in savings vis-a-vis traditional Medicare in 2012 by giving doctors and other healthcare providers the incentive to focus on improved outcomes for patients instead of fees from tests and services. Medicare, the $575 billion government healthcare system for 51 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries, faces growing financial pressures as a result of America’s aging population. A mainstay, the trust fund that pays for hospitalization, is expected to be exhausted in 2026. Deficit hawks view Medicare as a future driver of the federal debt and have called for major systemic reforms. But the Obama administration has pursued gradual changes including the reform of care delivery systems. So-called fee-for-service medicine is widely viewed as a cause of rising healthcare costs, because it calls for paying healthcare providers for tests and services that are sometimes unnecessary. Obamacare seeks to tackle costs by exploring ACOs and other new healthcare business models intended to find savings that do not jeopardize care. A main goal is to generate savings large enough to be shared between Medicare and providers. But some experts are skeptical, saying significant cost reductions could be hard to maintain over time. But CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, runs two different ACO programs. In its largest, 54 of 114 ACO networks achieved lower than expected expenditures. But only 29 saw savings big enough to share with providers. All told, the program produced $128 million in net savings for Medicare’s trust funds. “Overall, the ACO program’s a net saver to the Medicare program,” CMS principal deputy administrator Jon Blum told reporters in a conference call. “It’s giving us great confidence that this is the right course for the Medicare program and we are confident that it will continue to show quality improvement and cost savings.”  Officials said the ACOs also achieved a wide range of quality goals. But CMS released no quality statistics. Thursday’s government release drew some cautious optimism from the healthcare industry. “Today’s report reflects important steps. More work is needed to modernize our antiquated Medicare payment system and base payment on evidence-based quality measures and proven patient outcomes,” said Dr. John Noseworthy, chief executive of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, which is not part of the government’s program. “As results of the team-based care models are analyzed, those most effective in driving down health care costs without compromising safety and quality should become part of the healthcare system,” he said. Claim: U.S. says results encouraging for healthcare delivery reforms.
[A]: The Obama administration on Thursday reported what it called encouraging results from efforts to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of care for more than 5 million Medicare beneficiaries under Obamacare


[Q]: Paragraph: For Simmers, a retired Hagerstown police officer, that helplessness developed into frustration as he and his then 18 year-old daughter Brooke ran into a series of roadblocks and administrative red tape in seeking treatment for her heroin addiction in late 2013. “We tried all the things that we thought would help,” said Simmers, during a special lecture sponsored by the Shepherd University Department of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Sport Studies at Erma Ora Byrd auditorium Monday night. However, after multiple tries to get and stay clean, accompanied by a succession of relapses, Brook Simmers, then 19 years-old, died of a heroin overdose in April 2015 when she was found in the back seat of her car in a church parking lot. Simmers’ attitude toward drug addiction was somewhat different in the early1980s after he had graduated high school. “When I finished school, President Ronald Reagan had a big push then for the war on drugs,” Simmers said. “The way we were going to do it is handcuffs and incarceration.” Simmers joined the Air Force where he trained dogs to sniff out narcotics. Discharged four years later, he was hired by the Hagerstown Police Department in the early 1990s where he was assigned to the narcotics unit and eventually became part of a Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force. “I was targeting users and dealers — any type of narcotics,” Simmers said. “My feeling back then was ‘make as many arrests as you possibly can.’ ” Simmers recalled the day his daughter called him in late 2013 to ask for help, telling him she had developed an addiction to the opioid pain killer Percocet. The next year and half would be an in-the-field education for Simmers and his daughter, running into seemingly counter intuitive administrative regulations to securing Brooke immediate addiction treatment. According to Simmers, Brooke was initially refused insurance coverage for treatment because she was deemed a non-critical candidate. “Her addiction had not progressed to the point where she needed in-patient treatment,” Simmers said “It was not serious enough, they said, because she had not been arrested, she had not overdosed, and she had not been hospitalized.” Instead, Brooke was approved for out-patient treatment where she would go to daily classes every night. “I didn’t want to take that as an answer,” Simmers said. “If you are having a heart attack with chest pains, the doctors are not going to say, ‘well you’re still conscious. Let’s not call an ambulance just yet.’” After attending two weeks of out- patient classes, Brooke dropped out, telling her father she had her addiction under control. She returned to work In a few months, Simmers again heard from his daughter. “She had lost her job, and she had started to look unkempt, which was very unlike her,” Simmers said. “You could tell that things were spinning out of control again. She said she was now addicted to heroin and was shooting up every morning.” Now 18 years old, Brooke had to be the one to commit to treatment. Brooke was eventually accepted to an in-patient treatment facility in early 2014. However, Simmers later found out that she had checked herself out against medical advice and had relapsed back to drug use. After a few more attempted recoveries and relapses — including an overdose at a heroin dealer’s house in Baltimore, Maryland. Seeing his daughter’s drug addiction struggles first hand changed Simmers perspective on drug abuse and its unrelenting pull on the user. “An addict is not a weak-minded person,” Simmer said. “I am not of that camp anymore.” In the wake of his daughter’s death, Simmers and his wife Dana decided to start “Brooke’s House,” a public charity whose goals is to build a long-term, residential treatment facility for young women suffering from addiction in Smithsburg, Maryland. The HPERS department presented Simmers with a $300 donation from the Vince Gonino Fund to help with the construction of Brooke’s House. “This is one small way for HPERS faculty and students to give back to community and help fight drug addiction,” said Professor Stacey Kendig, department chair of HPERS. ___ Information from: The Journal, http://journal-news.net/ Claim: Daughter’s addiction changed former officer’s perspective.
[A]: Kevin Simmers knows the feeling of helplessness in fighting heroin addiction first hand.


[Q]: Paragraph: "A University of Texas English professor says a law enabling Texans with state permits to carry concealed guns into classrooms has already caused prospective faculty, students and even speakers not to come to the Austin campus. Lisa Moore said in an NPR interview aired Aug. 7, 2016, six days after the campus-carry mandate took effect: ""We already have concrete examples of faculty who have declined to apply for jobs here at the university or who, once offered jobs, have turned them down when they realized that this policy would go into effect, students changing their minds about coming to our graduate and undergraduate programs, and invited speakers declining to come when they realized that we couldn't guarantee that they would give their talk in a gun-free space."" ""Concrete examples"" is definitive. So, how about details? First it’s worth noting that since 1995, Texas law has allowed any individual with a concealed handgun permit to carry a gun on public college and university sidewalks, streets, parking areas and other grounds. In 2015, state lawmakers widened the law by voting to let permit holders also carry guns in campus buildings, except in areas excluded under rules adopted by each school’s president. UT-Austin President Gregory L. Fenves has written that he doesn’t believe handguns belong in campus buildings; still, he agreed to allow them in classrooms because, he said, barring them would have the effect of generally excluding guns from campus, which the law prohibits. In February 2016, Fenves also wrote Bill McRaven, the UT System chancellor: ""Since this is a new law with an unknown effect on UT Austin, we will monitor implementation and its impact on students, faculty members, and staffers. I have significant concerns about how the law will affect our ability to recruit and retain faculty members and students. Fenves is among state defendants, too, in a lawsuit filed by Moore and two fellow professors seeking to bar civilian handguns from campus. On Aug. 22, 2016, a federal judge denied their request for a preliminary injunction that would have allowed them to ban concealed handguns from their classrooms. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel said he found no precedent for the argument that professors have a right of academic freedom under the First Amendment so broad that it overrides decisions of the Legislature and the university that employs them. Moore, Jennifer Lynn Glass and Mia Carter were still free to pursue the merits of their case. But Yeakel’s ruling was a considerable setback for them, as they wanted to ban guns in time for the start of fall classes. Virginia professor declined UT visit Moore, asked for concrete examples, initially responded with an email reminding that an out-of-state candidate for a UT deanship said he bowed out of consideration in 2015 due to the gun law. A February 2016 Austin American-Statesman news blog post quoted Siva Vaidhyanathan, a University of Virginia professor of media studies who’d previously earned UT bachelor’s and doctoral degrees, saying he’d been contacted by a search firm helping the university find a dean for the Moody College of Communication--and, the story said, was later told he was a finalist. But the gun law weighed on him; the story said that if chosen, Vaidhyanathan said, he’d have felt compelled to side with faculty members seeking to bar guns from classrooms. ""I would probably be fired immediately,"" he said. ""I told the search firm I was no longer interested in the position."" To our inquiry, Vaidhyanathan provided a December 2015 email he sent to search firm officials declining their invitation to return to the Texas campus for ""an extended visit and a dinner"" about the deanship that would have included meetings with Fenves and others. Vaidhyanathan’s email said the prospect of guns being allowed in classrooms meant he couldn’t ""pursue this position with enthusiasm."" Vaidhyanathan wrote: ""I could not, in good conscience, ask faculty and students to put themselves into an environment in which students, visitors, or even faculty could be armed. My wife is a scientist. I could not ask her to take a job at a university that was forbidden by law to restrict guns from classrooms. The very consideration of that possibility puts a chilling effect on open and relaxed discourse in the classroom. And the fact that the university cannot restrict guns on campus in general means that university police officers are forbidden to do their jobs effectively. They can’t diffuse a threatening situation until it becomes a dangerous one. ""Universities are tense enough already. And we all count on our university police forces to confront and (defuse) threatening situations as early as possible. The State of Texas has put every student and professor in Texas in danger. I applaud the chancellor, the president, the faculty, and the students for their strong opposition to campus carry."" So, that’s a candidate for dean confirmed. Next, we followed up with Moore about particular students, other prospective faculty and speakers deciding not to come to UT due to the gun law. A mother’s email Moore forwarded a November 2015 email sent by a parent, Rachel Zucker, to a UT mailbox. The message says: ""Dear UT, I want you to know that my son, Moses Goren, is a straight A student at Hunter College High School (in NYC) who has expressed interest in applying to your Plan II program at UT (Austin). He and I have decided, however, that he will not apply to any schools that have campus carry laws. We believe that guns should not be allowed on college campuses and that guns present a serious physical danger for faculty and students. If you were to make UT Austin a safer place by making it illegal to bring a gun on campus, I would eagerly and proudly have Moses apply to your esteemed school. Thank you, Rachel Zucker"" To our inquiry, Zucker confirmed her son’s decision. ""Both of us feel even clearer about this than we did when wrote that email. The rampant gun violence and lack of commonsense gun control in this country should be a source of unmitigated shame for our leaders and legislators,"" Zucker said by email, adding that she hopes UT bans guns on campus. Moore also noted the departures of two UT faculty members by 2016. In each instance -- Architecture Dean Frederick Steiner’s move to the University of Pennsylvania and economist Daniel Hamermesh’s shift to opportunities abroad -- news stories and emails we fielded from the men describe the gun law as a factor, though not the only factor, in the departures. Hamermesh urged us to consult Joan Neuberger, a UT history professor, who responded by emailing a prospective graduate student’s February 2016 email saying she would decline UT’s offer of admission ""due to my misgivings with the campus carry guidelines President Fenves released today."" Nora Dolliver went on: ""Although I think that UT would be a wonderful place to complete my graduate training, I am unwilling to study or work in an environment where my classmates, professors, students, or patrons are permitted to carry handguns."" Harvard professor’s decision A March 2016 news story in UT’s student newspaper, The Daily Texan, quoted Moore saying a Harvard University professor had withdrawn from a search for a faculty position in the UT Women and Gender Studies department because of the measure letting guns into classrooms. By phone, Moore told us the professor, Robin Bernstein, had been urged by Moore and others to apply in 2015, but Bernstein, citing the gun law, declared she wouldn’t. ""She definitely would have been a finalist,"" Moore said, adding that faculty were ultimately unable to fill the position. By email, Bernstein told us she was invited to apply for a professorship in women’s and gender studies but declined to do so ""in large part because of the changes in Texas law to allow guns in class."" Bernstein shared a portion of her November 2015 email to Moore about deciding not to apply. The email says Bernstein had been ""watching the madness with the Texas legislature"" and wasn’t more than 50 percent sure she’d accept the UT job if it were offered. Concerned outside speaker Moore, asked about speakers deciding not coming to campus, pointed us to Paloma Diaz, an administrator in UT’s Teresa Lozano Long Institute for Latin American Studies. Diaz said by phone that a speaker who teaches at the University of Washington cited the gun law in initially resisting the institute’s invitation to give a talk in fall 2016, though she said the speaker subsequently relented. Diaz said she didn’t have permission to identify the speaker. Otherwise, a web search showed the institute has posted a notice that Angelina Snodgrass Godoy, a UW professor, is expected to visit and give talks Sept. 26, 2016. Godoy didn't respond to our query. We couldn’t fairly consider a couple of late-breaking instances of invited speakers deciding not to come to UT because their decisions became public after Moore spoke to NPR. Still: --A Duke University professor, Karla Holloway, wrote Phillip Barrish, a UT English professor, that she was rescinding her acceptance of Barrish’s invitation to speak on the campus in fall 2016. Holloway wrote Aug. 26, 2016: ""I believe guns, and especially the vulnerabilities exposed in conceal carry cultures, contribute mightily to our nation’s public health crisis. And with the conceal carry now in full effect there, and after discussion with my family, I just cannot come."" To our inquiry, Holloway forwarded a copy of the emailed March 2016 invitation from Barrish that she and Barrish told us she’d previously accepted. --Neuberger separately alerted us to a Texas Christian University historian, Hanan Hammad, reversing course about speaking at UT, also while citing the gun law (which allows private universities like TCU to opt out of the mandate). To our inquiry, Hammad forwarded her Aug. 26, 2016, email rescinding her agreement to speak in October 2016. Hammad wrote that ""with campus carry now in full effect at UT, I just cannot come. I'm always proud to be a UT alumnus and I owe my mentors and teachers great deal, but I'm in full solidarity with all UT faculty, staff, and students whose health and lives are in danger due to campus carry. I believe open or conceal carry on campus is wrong and dangerous."" UT administration suggests claim solid We also asked a university spokesman, Gary Susswein, about the accuracy of Moore’s claim. Susswein responded by emailing a web link to an August 2016 statement by sociologist Harry Edwards, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, in which Edwards said that due to implementation of the gun law, he was rescinding his permission to present UT lectures on sport and society, launched in 2014, in his name. ""My decision was an exceedingly difficult one,"" Edwards wrote, ""but silence is evil's greatest and most consistently dependable ally."" Another campus spokesman, J.B. Bird, said by email the administration could confirm Moore’s claim. Bird didn’t identify resistant individuals by name though he wrote that the university provost’s office ""confirmed hearing of a few people who decided not to interview and who stated that it was because of campus carry. Similarly, Bird said, provost officials say ""they have heard of a few cases of faculty speakers who have decided not to come to campus to give talks because of the law."" Bird said too that ""we know of students changing their minds about coming based on campus carry. Our admissions office said when the law was announced they received about 10 calls and 10-15 emails with applicants saying that they were not coming or would not apply. We assume that we don’t hear from 100 percent of the people who make this decision. ""That said,"" Bird wrote, ""we did just admit the largest incoming freshmen class in UT’s history, with about 8,500 freshman. From what we have seen, though, the assertion is  that some individuals have chosen not to come because of the new state law."" Our ruling Moore told NPR there are ""concrete examples"" of UT job applicants, prospective students and invited speakers deciding not to come to the university because of conceal-carry permit holders newly being allowed to bring handguns into campus buildings including classrooms. Not naming names, UT’s administration says this is so. We separately identified two out-of-state professors, a prospective graduate student and the mother of a high school student who cited the change in gun law and policy for not continuing to seek a UT position or not applying to come there--plus an outside speaker who reportedly resisted an invitation to speak on campus before relenting. – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Claim: "Lisa Moore Says there are ""concrete examples"" of University of Texas job applicants or prospective applicants and students as well as invited speakers changing their minds because of handguns being allowed in campus buildings and classrooms."
[A]:
"Moore told NPR there are ""concrete examples"" of UT job applicants, prospective students and invited speakers deciding not to come to the university because of conceal-carry permit holders newly being allowed to bring handguns into campus buildings including classrooms. Not naming names, UT’s administration says this is so. We separately identified two out-of-state professors, a prospective graduate student and the mother of a high school student who cited the change in gun law and policy for not continuing to seek a UT position or not applying to come there--plus an outside speaker who reportedly resisted an invitation to speak on campus before relenting."