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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: The total number of infections climbed to 41,495. “In the past 24 hours we had 117 new deaths and 3,186 new confirmed cases of people infected with the coronavirus,” Kianush Jahanpur told state TV, calling on Iranians to stay at home. Iran has had an intercity travel ban since Thursday and the government has extended the closure of universities and schools and the suspension of all cultural, religious and sports events. “If necessary, we might impose tougher measures as our priority is the nation’s safety and health,” said Iran’s first Vice President, Eshaq Jahangiri, according to state TV. Iran last week warned of a surge of cases as many Iranians ignored calls to avoid traveling for Persian New Year holidays that started on March 20. To stem the spread of the virus in crowded jails, Iran’s judiciary on Sunday extended furloughs for 100,000 prisoners. On March 17, Iran said it had freed about 85,000 people from jail temporarily, including political prisoners. Iranian media on Monday, citing the governor of Iran’s Fars province, Enayatollah Rahimi, reported that prisoners at one prison “broke cameras and caused other damage in two sections of the prison where violent criminals are kept”. The state news agency IRNA said similar riots had erupted in other prisons since March 20. Families have called for the release of all prisoners. Claim: Iran plans tougher restrictions as coronavirus toll rises.

Answer: Iran had 117 new coronavirus deaths in the last 24 hours, bringing the total to 2,757, a health ministry spokesman said on Monday, prompting the Middle East’s worst hit country to consider tougher curbs on movement.


Question: Paragraph: "Patients used to pay $10,000 a year for cancer drugs, but now they’re paying $10,000 a month, according to HBO talk show host Bill Maher. That’s a message circulating on Facebook recently, promoted by the ""Bill Maher Fanpage."" A reader asked us to check it out. The quote comes from the Oct. 2 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher discussed Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company that jacked up the cost of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 essentially overnight. ""Not that (Turing CEO Martin) Shkreli is unusual for the pharmaceutical industry,"" Maher said on his show. ""Fifteen years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month because this cartel owns the U.S. government every bit as much as Mexican drug lords own theirs."" It’s well known that the cost of health care is on the rise, but has the annual cost of cancer drugs really increased so dramatically in just a decade and a half? Maher’s team sent us links to some news articles about the rising cost of cancer drugs, and we tracked down information that speaks to his claim. The best information we could nail down is the cost of anticancer drugs at launch, the initial price when the Federal Drug Administration approves a drug. These are the sticker prices set by the pharmaceutical companies, not the prices patients actually pay out of pocket, which are reduced by insurance payments, patient assistance programs and other discounts. Costs increases, though, are often passed on to consumers. Maher has a point that cancer drug costs are on the rise. We charted the launch costs of cancer drugs the FDA approved since 1999, using a list compiled by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The second half of Maher’s statement -- that cancer drugs now cost about $10,000 a month -- is also on solid ground. Of drugs approved in 2015, the monthly average cost is $11,319. And experts in the field often cite that $10,000 figure themselves. Because many cancer drugs are not administered to patients for a full year, it’s difficult to determine an average annual cost, so the first half of Maher’s statement -- that they cost about $10,000 a year 15 years ago -- is hard to nail down. To his point, though, the monthly cost of a new drug was dramatically lower in 2000 than what it is now at about $4,634. One of the news articles that Maher’s team sent us is an academic article in the Journal of Oncology Practice that supports his statement. The report reads, ""The average cancer drug price for approximately one year of therapy or a total treatment duration was less than $10,000 before 2000."" Maher’s statement is ""in the ballpark,"" if not an understatement, said Rena Conti, a health economist at the University of Chicago who researches cancer drug prices. In a 2015 paper Conti authored with three other leading health economists, she examined the launch cost of anticancer drugs controlled for inflation and the benefit to the patient (how much it prolongs life expectancy). For example, in 1995, anticancer drugs cost $54,100 for an additional year of life, the study found. In 2005, drugs cost $139,100 for the same benefit, and the price grew to $207,000 in 2013. In the United States, pharmaceutical companies set their own drug prices. What’s pushing them to increase the costs? It’s not necessarily that cancer drugs are getting better and are thus worth more. Conti’s research concluded that just about one-fifth of the cancer drug cost increase can be attributed to a better product. There are two primary forces behind annual cancer drug cost increases, Conti said: First, pharmaceutical companies estimate a ""zone of indifference"" -- based on last year’s prices, how much more would buyers be willing to pay? Second, rebates and discounts for drugs have also increased over time, and this creates an incentive for drug companies to increase their costs alongside the discounts. Pharmaceutical companies defend drug price increases by emphasizing that the revenue funds innovative research and that drugs lower overall health care costs by treating illnesses. Because there’s no formal price regulation and competition in the industry is rare, ""It really is a system where there’s no downward pressure on drug prices,"" said Peter Bach, director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Center for Health Policy and Outcomes in an interview with Fortune. Our ruling Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn’t easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren’t used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify, though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher’s numbers are a little squishy, but they’re in the ballpark." Claim: 15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month.

Answer: "Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn’t easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren’t used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify, though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher’s numbers are a little squishy, but they’re in the ballpark."


Question: Paragraph: "Hospital officials from across Virginia flocked to Richmond last week to air concerns about tightening revenues at their facilities. Among them was Mary Mannix, president and CEO of Augusta Health, a rural hospital in Fishersville about 90 miles west of Richmond. Mannix said her facility is on solid financial footing but that many other rural hospitals are not. ""Just about half of rural hospitals operate in the red in Virginia,"" Mannix said at a news conference organized by the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association, a lobbying group. ""They operate at a loss."" The struggles of rural hospitals across the nation have been well reported in recent years. Facing declining population bases and tightening Medicaid reimbursements, many have struggled to remain open and some have shut down, including Lee Regional Medical Center in Southwest Virginia in 2013. Many hospital officials hoped the General Assembly would ease the stress by expanding the state’s Medicaid program to reduce the medically uninsured. Under provisions of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, the federal government would pay all of the costs of expanding the program through 2017 and at least 90 percent in the future. Republican lawmakers have blocked the expansion and say Uncle Sam can’t be trusted to pay his promised share. The debate is sure to continue when the General Assembly convenes in January. The hospital association says it will lobby lawmakers to find solutions to financial problems at hospitals -- although what solutions, the group isn’t saying. In the past, the association has backed Medicaid expansion. So we wondered whether Mannix was correct in saying ""just about half"" of Virginia’s rural hospitals are running in the red. We reached out to Lisa Schwenk, a spokeswoman for Augusta Health, to find the source for Mannix’s statistic. Schwenk referred us to Julian Walker, the spokesman for the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association. Walker sent us a hospital association chart showing that 17 of 37 rural hospitals in Virginia -- or 46 percent --  had operating losses in 2013, the latest year data are available. The chart listed basic ""acute care hospitals"" - facilities  where people get care for illnesses and injuries. It does not include psychiatric, rehabilitative or other specialized medical centers. The underlying information for the hospital association chart comes from Virginia Health Information, an independent, non-profit group that contracts with the Virginia Department of Health to provide information on the cost and quality of health care in the state. The group releases an annual report looking at the operating margins of all hospitals around the state. Michael Lundberg, executive director at Virginia Health Information, sent us a link to the group’s database showing the fiscal 2013 financial results for the hospitals. It lists 36 rural hospitals, 17 of which had a negative operating margin. That comes to 47 percent. In this database, the hospitals were allowed to determine for themselves whether they should be classified as rural or urban. Lundberg also sent us a second batch of data in which hospitals were sorted as rural or urban based on definitions from the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. This grouping listed 25 rural hospitals in 2013, 16 of which ran in the red. That comes to 64 percent. By comparison, Lundberg’s figures show that of the 60 urban hospitals in Virginia under the federal definition, 13 had operating losses. That means nearly 22 percent of urban hospitals in the commonwealth had an operating loss in 2013. Our ruling Mannix said about half of the rural hospitals in Virginia are operating at a loss. Figures from the group that tracks hospital finances back her claim and suggest, if anything, her estimate is on the low end." Claim: Just about half of rural hospitals operate in the red in Virginia. They operate at a loss.

Answer:
Mannix said about half of the rural hospitals in Virginia are operating at a loss. Figures from the group that tracks hospital finances back her claim and suggest, if anything, her estimate is on the low end.