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.

[Q]: The system preserves the most amount of natural bone, making it a less invasive way to treat diseased joints. Kalamazoo, Michigan-based Stryker, one of the top makers of reconstructive implants, said its system, called Triathlon PKR, is beneficial because it allows surgeons to provide personalized solutions by only shaving off diseased parts of the knee rather than replacing larger parts of it, or the entire knee joint. Partial knee resurfacing requires less operating time than total keep replacements and there is a shorter recovery period, with some patients leaving the hospital in less than 24 hours, Stryker said. Because less bone is removed, there is often less trauma to soft tissue during surgery, which may leave the patient with a more natural feeling knee than with a total knee replacement, the company added.
[A]: Stryker launches partial knee resurfacing systems.


[Q]: The story not only mentions the cost of a scan to individuals ($100 to $500), it also notes that about $50 million dollars was spent on this type of scanning nationwide in 2008. A longer story could have also reported on the costs of additional testing and treatments triggered by screening apparently healthy individuals. As mentioned above, the story notes that while some experts recommend CT screening for coronary artery calcium deposits in order to increase the number of people receiving treatment to reduce the likelihood of a heart, others are skeptical about the real value of this type of screening for apparently health people. The reporter points out that many heart attacks strike people who do not have very high cholesterol levels or other indicators of elevated risk, but also that “no study has linked the use of CT scans with better patient outcomes.”   The potential cancer risk caused by CT screening for signs of heart disease is the point of this story. Also, by highlighting uncertainty about the benefits of the screening and recapping debate over the Texas law mandating coverage of the scans, the story emphasizes the importance of considering potential harms when setting public policy on screening tests. A longer story could have considered other potential harms, including the side effects of treatments prescribed based on screening tests. The story does a good job of summarizing the results of this study of potential cancer risk from CT screening. In addition, it outlines the positions of experts and organizations on the broader body of evidence on the use of CT scans to identify people who may have plaque buildups in their heart arteries. It would have been better if the reporter stated that the estimate was based on several assumptions, that it wasn’t a definitive point estimate, but just the center of a range, and that it was higher than earlier estimates. Readers still got the point that there is a cancer risk which needs to be considered. The story notes that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S., but it also points out doubts about whether screening with CT scans for calcium buildup in heart arteries can reduce the toll. The story includes experts and advocates that represent the key perspectives in debate about CT screening for calcium deposits in coronary arteries. However, it does not include information on possible conflicts of interest. Although this story points out that alternative screening techniques are available and it makes reference to cholesterol, it does not include any details about the alternatives. The story says that the CT scanners used for this test are “all over the city” and included an estimate that in 2008 about 200,000 people around the country were scanned for calcium buildups in their coronary arteries. not in question in this story The story includes quotes from independent experts and other information that was not in the news release about the journal article.
[A]: Warning sounded on heart scan law


[Q]: The updated legislation unveiled by Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., would lower the standard copay to 20% from the current 25% for seniors enrolled in Medicare’s Part D prescription drug benefit. It also introduces a feature that would let Medicare enrollees spread out their copays in monthly installments. Because of the current design of the system, seniors taking very expensive drugs can face unmanageable out-of-pocket costs in the first couple of months of any year. The bipartisan Senate bill has the support of President Donald Trump, but it’s unclear if any significant drug pricing legislation can pass a Congress polarized by impeachment. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to bring her own, more ambitious bill to a floor vote next week. The California Democrat’s legislation would empower Medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies and plow the savings back into expanded dental, vision and hearing benefits for seniors. But congressional Republicans are opposed to the government negotiating drug prices. Trump, who supported the idea as a candidate, has since dropped it. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, is reluctant to bring the bipartisan Grassley-Wyden bill to the floor. It could trigger Democratic amendments designed to create political headaches for Republicans on other issues, such as protecting people with pre-existing medical conditions. In terms of policy ideas, there’s considerable overlap between the Senate bill and parts of Pelosi’s plan. Both would cap out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries and require drugmakers to pay rebates to the government if they hike prices above inflation. But the political challenges may be impossible to overcome. The Grassley-Wyden bill would limit out-of-pocket medication costs faced by seniors to $3,100, starting in 2022. Currently there is no limit, and some Medicare recipients dealing with serious illness face copays rivaling a mortgage payment. In a statement late Friday, the White House said “President Donald J. Trump applauds the work of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Wyden to lower prescription drug costs and further improve their bipartisan legislation, such as adding a provision to limit monthly out-of-pocket spending for seniors with chronic high costs. The White House called on Congress “to act now to give Americans the relief they need by sending bipartisan drug pricing reform to the President’s desk this year.” Supporters of the Senate bill are hoping a deal can still be had, and that major prescription drug legislation can be incorporated in a budget bill expected early next year. The pharmaceutical industry opposes both the Senate and House bills and has poured millions of dollars into a lobbying battle to block them.
[A]:
"Bipartisan Medicare drug bill gets makeover to lower copays."