instruction:
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.
question:
The extraordinary safety measures that will govern the May 20-22 session were delineated in a letter Wednesday from Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan to the House minority leader. Legislators will have to pledge to follow Illinois Department of Public Health guidelines to prevent the spread of the highly contagious and potentially lethal coronavirus. They include pre-session testing of all legislators for COVID-19. Eschewing the traditional Capitol setting, the House will be called to order six blocks away at the Bank of Springfield Center in downtown Springfield, to take advantage of the spacious convention center floor for social distancing. The Senate, whose membership is half the House’s 118 seats, will meet in its regular chamber, Senate President Don Harmon said in a statement. The Oak Park Democrat rallied senators to return to action with the “cooperative spirit of bipartisan achievement” they’ve shown before. “This global pandemic has decimated our state and local economies regardless of political affiliation,” Harmon said. “From far-flung living rooms, kitchen tables and home offices, senators have been working together — while apart — to figure out what we can and need to do now.” Legislators, whom Gov. J.B. Pritzker declared essential workers and not subject to his seven-week-old stay-at-home order scheduled to expire May 30, have nonetheless been absent from the Statehouse since early March to prevent spreading sickness. That period represents the heart of the Illinois General Assembly’s spring-session calendar, ending with a scheduled May 31 adjournment and typically a budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. Pritzker implored lawmakers to help those left out of initial federal relief deals. “Lots of people fell through the cracks,” Pritzker said at his daily COVID-19 briefing in Chicago. Relief won’t come from the state treasury. Tax revenue lost because of the pandemic has opened a $7 billion deficit in the current budget and next year’s. Illinois will be dependent on the federal government, Pritzker said. “We need to rely upon federal government and its support for all the states in order for us to provide the services that people need or for us to pay for the education that our kids need, and for us to support our businesses and our families,” Pritzker said. Madigan’s letter to House GOP Leader Jim Durkin of Western Springs said all state representatives must pledge to abide by public health guidelines for safely congregating. In addition to pre-trip testing, they include agreeing to undergo body temperature checks upon entering the building for sessions, wearing provided face coverings whenever meeting with staff members or colleagues, avoiding outside meetings or social engagements, and undergoing another test upon returning home. It won’t be the first time lawmakers convened outside of the current Statehouse, which welcomed its first session in 1877. In recent history, the legislative chambers were undergoing renovation when then-Gov. George Ryan called a special session in the summer of 2000 to temporarily remove the state sales tax on gasoline during a price spike. Sessions were conducted in the auditorium of the Howlett Building next door to the Capitol. ___ Check out more of the AP’s coronavirus coverage at https://apnews.com/VirusOutbreak and https://apnews.com/UnderstandingtheOutbreak ___ Follow Political Writer John O’Connor at https://twitter.com/apoconnor
answer:
Safety measures to govern Legislature’s return to capital.


question:
While the story does describe the cost of stenting, it does not provide the cost of the medication for comparison. The story does give the rate of heart attack or death as 19% within 7 years for both the stent and the medication group. Although the study mentions the risk of clotting with drug-coated stents, this is not adequate information on harms. Furthermore, the study does not mention any possible harms of medication. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease. Furthermore, the story clearly states that this study was done on patients at low risk, that is, those with stable heart disease. The story only quotes one cardiologist not associated with the study and gives no rationale for why he was chosen. (Is it because he's in New York and readily available?) The story could have quoted other clinicians or experts who could have provided some valuable perspective on the impact of this new development on the management of heart disease. The story does mention medication as the alternative to stenting. The story clearly states that stenting is very common in the U.S. The story clearly states that stenting is not a new idea. Because the story quotes the lead author of the study and one physician who is not related to the study, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
answer:
Heart study: Most angioplasties not needed


question:
"The story addresses cost by implying there is an overall cost savings when labor is not induced early and the birth process is not medically managed if a mother and fetus are otherwise healthy. This story suggests that savings may be in the form of fewer birth complications, decreased risk of hemorrhage and transfusion, less pain medication for longer labors, shorter hospital stays for infection or unplanned caesarean births and fewer days in neonatal intensive care for problems related to immature lungs and related respiratory problems. It is however, optimistic to think that the sort of data they discuss is sound; actual evidence-based cost data is meager or absent. The article likely overstates the evidence, but we give a satisfactory rating as they do directly address cost issues. The story mentions that sometimes an induced labor is medically-appropriate for the safety of the mother and her infant. The story also mentions recent data published in Annals of Family Medicine suggesting that even in healthy women, labor induction can be safe if women are appropriately selected. However, the focus of the story is on the trend to induce labor for the sake of convenience in otherwise healthy women. The story makes  the strong case that adherence to evidence-based guidelines may reduce some of the harms of this practice. Regarding the title of Nicolson’s work and the concept of ""preventive induction"", indeed the title of the paper is somewhat insidious and not directly addressed by this article. The concept that retrospective cohort data can support the concept of finding an ""optimal time"" for medical intervention to prevent risks in normal, uncomplicated pregnancies that are not post dates deserves to be closely examined. The implication is that we will be able to determine through data when it is the best time to ""prevent"" normal onset of labor. A radical notion that was not much dealt with since we are so accustomed to the concept that aspects of prenatal and birth care can prevent many outcomes which in fact they cannot. The harms they include are well-described (if poorly supported by definitive evidence). The risks may outweigh the benefits if labor is induced early without sufficient medical reason. Among harms listed are potentially longer labors and related dehydration and infection; increased rates of unplanned caesarean births; longer hospital stays for both mother and baby; increased risk of birth injuries and more time spent in the neonatal in-hospital care for babies born with underdeveloped lungs or to heal birth injuries. In the interest of balance it is important to note that few trials are available to determine the risks/benefits and costs. The story presented an advocate, a nay-sayer, some commentators, and included the concept that more research is needed. However, they may have walked-by the fact that meta-analyses of trials to date do not find strong influence on cesearean rates and are underpowered for outcomes like neonatal death, NICU admission, fetal asphyxia, etc. The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story is quite balanced and notes practice variation and ways to reduce the trend of medically-managed birth. The inclusion of details about the medicalization of birth and related cultural trends is a plus. The story cites a new mother and several researchers and obstetricians who provide perspective on this issue and list pros and cons of the increasingly common practice of induced labor in the U.S.  All sources are appropriately identified by their practice, related research publications and university or medical center affiliation. This story considers the ""treatment option"" of electively substituting a medical intervention for a physiologic process without specifically noting that it is an odd concept of ""treatment"" (except indirectly in Klein’s and the Intermountain representative). The story does a good job of talking about how convenience and ""consumer driven"" the choice is but falls just short of really closing the loop that most normal things don’t require a treatment to replace them. The story notes the wide range of practice variation. The story also notes that requests for early labor induction may be restricted or denied by certain payers and at some healthcare settings as the practice is not in accordance with most evidence-based guidelines. The story notes that the practice of inducing labor and rates of caesarean births have increased. The story speculates that this practice may be influenced by obstetrician and patient schedules and the idea that it is equally safe to schedule a birth as it is to wait for a natural labor and delivery. Novelty is not invoked though the cultural trends underpinning increased use are handled well. The story has an excellent variety of sources and there is balanced reporting on the trend to induce early labor in medical practices in the U.S."
answer:

Inducing labor for convenience gets a second look