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.

Example Input: Paragraph: "Editor’s note, July 8, 2016: We originally published this fact check on June 13 and rated the statement False. After that, experts pointed out we left out a step in our calculation of Harris County’s incarceration rate. We have updated our story and the rating has changed. You may read an archived version of the original article here. Equal Justice Under Law, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group, filed a lawsuit against Harris County’s bail system alleging that hundreds of offenders are jailed for minor offenses every day because they cannot afford to make bail. The group says that since 2015, it has filed 10 class action challenges to money bail systems in eight states. The May 2016 suit led state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, to issue a press release on May 19, 2016, sharing his support of the legal action, saying, ""Harris County’s overreliance on the inefficient and ineffective use of mass incarceration as a means of dealing with low-level and nonviolent offenses continues to result in some of the highest jailing and incarceration rates in the U.S. and the world."" We’re familiar with incarceration rates. In August 2015, PolitiFact Virginia found  a claim the U.S. has the world’s highest incarceration rate -- meaning the greatest share of the population behind bars. In March 2016, we rated  a claim that Texas has a higher incarceration rate than Russia or Iran. So, does Harris County, the third most populous in the nation, also have one of the highest incarceration rates in the country and world? The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics defines an incarceration rate as the number of inmates per 100,000 residents held in state or federal prisons or local jails. To our request for the senator’s factual backup, Ellis aide David Edmonson emailed a spreadsheet listing incarceration rates for the five most populous counties in the state, based on data from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Harris County had a rate of 234 inmates per 100,000, while the four less-populous counties had rates between 152 and 233 people per 100,000. Edmonson also included a link to a Washington Post fact-check stating the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and a link to the website of The Sentencing Project listing Texas as having the seventh highest incarceration rate in the country. Harris County, he said, has the highest prison and state jail rate of the five largest counties in the state, as determined by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. ""In other words,"" Edmonson wrote, ""Harris County sends the most people to prison and state jail -- in the state with the seventh-highest incarceration -- in the country with the highest incarceration rate."" Checking with TDCJ With Edmonson’s reply in our pocket, we looked to verify figures on our own. First, we checked with TDCJ to see how Harris County’s incarceration rate compares nationally and with other counties in Texas, focusing on the agency’s 2014 annual statistical report tallying newly incarcerated people (receives) and each facility’s on-hand population, which provides a closer look at the incarcerated population on Aug. 31, 2014, all by county of conviction. The data reflect populations in state prisons, state jails and substance abuse felony punishment facilities. By phone, we asked Jason Clark, the director of TDCJ, what the different charts represented in the agency’s report, and which would be most accurate for reflecting each county’s incarcerated population in state facilities. Clark described the on-hand population as the best overall measure, as ""new receives,"" only show the newly admitted population. He added one caveat — the counties listed show where a person was convicted, not necessarily where that person lived before or where that person is being detained. So, according to TDCJ, Harris County’s incarceration rate in state facilities in 2014, the most recent year published, was 599 inmates per 100,000 residents, or 26,647 inmates. By rate alone, that ranked Harris County 134th out of Texas’ 254 counties. However, there are many other prisoners held in local jailhouses. So we turned to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, which regulates county jails and municipal lockups. The commission’s monthly incarceration rate report reflects the average daily population of county jail inmates, based on a 12-month average of one-day snapshots, taken the first day of each month. According to the commission’s September 2014 report, Harris County in 2014 had a rate of 196.6 inmates per 100,000 residents, or 8,731 inmates in county and municipal lockups. Looking strictly at incarceration rates, regardless of the relative population of different counties, Harris County placed 169th in the state. By adding figures from both sources of data, we get a fuller picture of the number of people behind bars in Harris County, regardless of whether they are in a county jail or state prison. That gives Harris County a 2014 incarceration rate of 796 inmates per 100,000 residents, or 35,378 people who were in county jail, state jail, prison or substance abuse facilities. If we include federal prison inmates, the overall rate increases to 816 per 100,000 residents, or 36,234 people. U.S., world incarceration rates For the same year, the total United States’ incarceration rate was 716 per 100,000, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit that advocates against what it calls mass criminalization policies. Worldwide, the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, a London-based nonprofit that conducts research on crime and criminal justice issues, calculated an incarceration rate of 144 per 100,000, based on United Nations data. That is, Harris County had a total incarceration rate exceeding both the world and U.S. rates. There are some Texas-centric wrinkles, however. Out of the five most populous Texas counties, Harris County’s rate came in second place for 2014. Dallas County had an overall incarceration rate of 913 inmates per 100,000, or 23,006 inmates. And far less populous counties had even higher rates. Notably, Kenedy County in South Texas ranked first in the state with an overall rate of 5,000 people per 100,000 residents, though the county accounted for a grand total of 20 inmates. At the time, Kenedy County was home to 400 residents; Harris County’s population was 4.4 million. Experts comment For guidance, we checked with two independent criminal justice experts. Peter Wagner directs the Prison Policy Initiative, which studies incarceration rates closely and often is called upon to explain such figures. Michele Dietch, a senior lecturer in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, has worked on criminal justice issues since the late 1980s. Wagner said the initiative’s global report, which folds in U.S. states with other countries to make state-to-country incarceration rate comparisons, leaves out countries with populations of less than 500,000. Smaller countries could prove distracting in discussing how the United States differs from its peers, he said. According to the report, Texas had a 2014 incarceration rate of 1,063 per 100,000, which was the fifth highest in the world. Louisiana ranked No. 1 internationally; its rate was 1,341 inmates per 100,000 residents. Louisiana’s population of 4.6 million, according to 2015 Census figures, is comparable to Harris County’s population of 4.5 million for the same time period. The report includes federal prison populations in state incarceration rate calculations, since ""state politics certainly influence whether and where federal prisons are built."" Mississippi, Oklahoma and Georgia also topped Texas, with rates ranging from 1,074 to 1,155 inmates per 100,000 residents. Among countries, the U.S. had the highest rate, 716 prisoners per 100,000 residents. Since we began our research, the PPI came out with a new 2016 global incarceration rate report. While rates have changed (Texas went from a rate of 1,063 inmates per 100,000 to 890), rankings have more or less remained the same. Texas ranks eighth in the world, Louisiana is now second after Washington, D.C. and the United States is still the first country to appear on the list with a rate of 693 per 100,000. Dietch told us by phone that she sees value in both per capita rates and raw counts. Per capita rates, she said, are the best way to make comparisons because they adjust for what can be vast differences in population. ""Per capita rates equalize comparisons across jurisdictions of different sizes,"" she wrote in a follow-up email. ""Otherwise, big jurisdictions will always look worse in terms of absolute numbers."" But, she said, there’s value in looking at absolute numbers, since jurisdictions contributing the largest numbers of inmates will have ""by far the biggest impact on the system."" That is, rural Kenedy County may have the state’s highest incarceration rate and may be sending a higher share of its residents into the criminal justice system, Dietch said, yet its share of all state prisoners remains negligible. ""Those absolute numbers — not the rates — are one of the key drivers of the size of the incarcerated population,"" she said via email. ""And none of this even begins to take into account issues such as the length of sentences, another key driver of incarceration trends in Texas."" ""You need to look at both to understand,"" she said. She explained one of the main reasons a smaller county may have a higher incarceration rate lies in the lack of local sentencing alternatives including support programs, substance abuse treatment or electronic monitoring. People end up in prison or jail, Dietch said, because there isn’t much else as an alternative. In contrast, she said, urban communities like Harris County have more options to keep people out of jail and prison, she said. Our ruling Ellis said Harris County has some of the highest jailing and incarceration rates in the U.S. and the world. Harris County's rate -- calculated as the number of inmates per 100,000 residents -- exceeds the rates for the United States and world though we found jurisdictions including Dallas County with higher rates. To be fair, though, Ellis didn’t say Harris County’s rate is the highest, only that it’s among the highest. – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Claim: "Harris County, Texas has ""some of the highest jailing and incarceration rates in the U.S. and the world."
Example Output: Ellis said Harris County has some of the highest jailing and incarceration rates in the U.S. and the world. Harris County's rate -- calculated as the number of inmates per 100,000 residents -- exceeds the rates for the United States and world though we found jurisdictions including Dallas County with higher rates. To be fair, though, Ellis didn’t say Harris County’s rate is the highest, only that it’s among the highest.

Example Input: 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.
Example Output: "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."

Example Input: Paragraph: Such a test could initially be used to select patients for clinical trials of experimental treatments being developed to try to halt progression of Alzheimer’s, the researchers said, and may one day move into routine use in doctors’ clinics. “Alzheimer’s begins to affect the brain many years before patients are diagnosed (and) many of our drug trials fail because by the time patients are given the drugs the brain has already been too severely affected,” said Simon Lovestone of Oxford University, who led this work from King’s College London. “A simple blood test could help us identify patients at a much earlier stage to take part in new trials and hopefully develop treatments,” he said. Alzheimer’s is the most common form of dementia, a brain-wasting disease which in 2010 was estimated to be costing the world $604 billion a year. The fatal disease affects 44 million people worldwide, with the number set to triple by 2050, the campaign group Alzheimer’s Disease International says. Several big pharma firms including Roche, Eli Lilly, Merck & Co and Johnson & Johnson, are pursuing various approaches to get to the root cause of Alzheimer’s and try to find treatments to halt its progression. Yet over the past 15 years, more than 100 experimental Alzheimer’s drugs have failed in trial. Lovestone and other experts believe this may be because drug trials are conducted too late, in patients whose condition has already gone too far. A predictive test for use before people develop symptoms would help researchers select the right people for drug trials, and help show whether the experimental drugs are working. Previous studies have found that PET brain scans and tests of lumbar fluid can be used to predict the onset of dementia from people with a less severe condition known as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), but these tests are expensive and invasive, so scientists are keen to develop a cheaper, simpler blood test. MCI includes problems with day-to-day memory, language and attention. It can be an early sign of dementia, or a symptom of stress or anxiety. Around 10 percent of people diagnosed with MCI develop dementia within a year. Apart from regular assessments to measure memory decline, there is currently no accurate way of predicting who will or won’t develop dementia. For this study, published in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, Lovestone’s team used blood samples from 1,148 people - 476 with Alzheimer’s, 220 with mild cognitive impairment and 452 elderly controls without dementia. They were analyzed for 26 proteins previously found to be linked with Alzheimer’s. The team found 16 of these 26 proteins to be strongly associated with brain shrinkage in either MCI or Alzheimer’s and then ran a second series of tests to see which of these could predict which patients would progress from MCI to Alzheimer’s. With this second series, they found a combination of 10 proteins capable of predicting with 87 percent accuracy whether people with MCI would develop Alzheimer’s disease within a year. Experts in the field welcomed the results but said they should be replicated in larger studies before an Alzheimer’s blood test could be rolled out for use in doctors’ clinics. “The results reported today are interesting, but as the authors point out there is still a very large amount of work remaining until a usable blood test for Alzheimer’s disease becomes available,” said Adrian Pini of the MRC Center for Developmental Neurobiology at King’s College London. James Pickett, head of research at the Alzheimer’s Society, said the research “does not mean that a blood test for dementia is just around the corner”. “These 10 proteins can predict conversion to dementia with less than 90 percent accuracy, meaning one in 10 people would get an incorrect result,” he said. “Accuracy would need to be improved before it could be a useful diagnostic test.” Claim: Study paves the way for a blood test to predict Alzheimer's.
Example Output:
British scientists have identified a set of 10 proteins in the blood that can predict the onset of Alzheimer’s and call this an important step towards developing a test for the incurable brain-wasting disease.