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: The article does a good job of noting the cost of the combing salons, as well as cost of the medicinal shampoos and other drug treatments, specifically noting also that insurance may not cover the costs. The article cites data from a recent review article in a medical journal that outlines the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the medicinal treatments. “The medications have been found to be from 68% to 87% effective after one or two applications. Most don’t require combing,” the story says. We do wish they story explained what “67% effective” means for a typical person, however. The careful reader will note that the evidence for the effectiveness of the featured combing salons is mostly anecdotal, and it would have greatly strengthened the article to have been more explicit about this, as well as including more solid proof that standard lice medications are not as effective as they used to be. The article notes that various organizations and experts consider the chemical/medicinal treatments to be highly safe as well as effective. The story needed to be more explicit about the quality of evidence for each of the treatment options mentioned–combing, going to a delousing salon, over-the-counter treatments, prescription treatments. Only the latter are mentioned in the context of research. The story references a review article that compares the different approaches, but it provides no details on what kind of evidence the review is based on. No disease mongering here, and we were glad the story pointed out that there are no adverse physical health effects from lice. The article does a very good job of noting the conflicts of interest of those quoted. The story explored alternatives. Good job on this. It’s clear that businesses that assist with combing are easy to find, and over-the-counter shampoos are even easier. What appears to be “new” is the explosion of combing salons and newer prescription shampoos, as well as the review article published last week that evaluates them. This story doesn’t appear to rely on a news release. Claim: New Ways to Fight Super Lice

A: The treatment of childhood cases of head lice infestations is a popular news media perennial at the start of the school year, and this Wall Street Journal story falls into that category. It covers the usual elements — prevalence of the infestations among school age children, over-the-counter and prescription treatments, home remedies (which generally don’t work) and reassurance about the pesky but essentially benign health impact. This story also takes a look at the rise of “lice-combing” salons and newer medications meant to stand in when older medications are ineffective. We were impressed by the depth of the sourcing, along with the details that helped readers assess any potential conflicts of interest among said sources. One thing we wished had been more detailed: How the evidence stacks up for each of the treatments. As the article itself makes clear, head lice infestation is a widespread, unpleasant, and disruptive — albeit relatively benign — condition that costs millions of families money, aggravation and time in efforts to prevent and treat. Adding to the nuisance of ridding scalps, tresses, clothing and home furnishings of the pests, some of the historic over-the-counter medicinal treatments have lost their power owing to drug-resistant mutations in the lice. Newer prescription medicines are effective, but worry an apparently growing number of parents who work hard to avoid what they consider unnecessary chemical exposure. Thus, parents are certain to be looking for the best and latest information about treatments.
****
Q: Paragraph: Moira O’Neill, director of the Office of the Child Advocate, said the center operated by Granite Pathways was unusual in that it was licensed by the Department of Health and Human Services but was not certified by the division that oversees child welfare. While that’s not a requirement because the Division for Children, Youth and Families didn’t directly place children at the facility, without that certification, it is unclear who had oversight over quality and safety, O’Neill said. “We have issues with the extent of oversight DCYF provides to certified agencies, but at a bare minimum, they know who’s there, they re-certify them every two years, they provide technical assistance. There’s some expectation that someone has an idea of what’s going on in the program,” she said in an interview. Republican Gov. Chris Sununu and the health department announced on Nov. 27 the state was canceling its contract with Granite Pathways, which had been operating the 36-bed facility in Manchester for just over a year. A summary report released by the department Monday said that in a span of less than two weeks, four of the 10 residents were taken to hospitals after taking drugs one of them smuggled in, a fifth took multiple doses of prescription medication in an apparent suicide attempt and a sixth drank a bottle of hand sanitizer. The remaining residents have since been transferred, and the contract officially ends Dec. 27. Some of the residents at the center were known to the child welfare agency, said O’Neill, who has been reviewing their records. “In our preliminary review, we found that there were children who were placed there who have really complicated needs, and we don’t know if that program had the capacity to serve those needs,” she said. O’Neill said she sent the Department of Health and Human Services a list of questions in late November about what the facility knew about the children, its capacity to meet their needs and how the program was supervised. As of Tuesday, she had not received answers. “If we are going to understand the circumstances that prompted seven ambulance transports, we must understand how those children came to be at the facility and what transpired in assessing and treating them,” she said. Jake Leon, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the department agrees with O’Neill that it is important to ensure that children get the services they need. He said the department has addressed and continues to address similar questions, but responses must remain confidential to protect clients’ privacy. “DHHS monitored Granite Pathways’ compliance with its contractual obligations and is still compiling information regarding the organization’s noncompliance. There is also an ongoing investigation by DCYF that must be kept confidential,” he said in an email. Patrica Reed, state director at Granite Pathways, said the nonprofit’s leaders and board of directors were still reviewing the health department’s report. “The end of this contract does not end Granite Pathways’ commitment to its mission of supporting individuals with substance use disorders and mental illness in achieving their life goals as valued members of their communities,” she said in a statement. But the trouble at the youth treatment center has raised questions about the state’s approach to funding substance abuse treatment in general and Granite Pathways in particular. Since 2016, it has been a subsidiary of The Fedcap Group, a New York-based nonprofit that focuses on helping people overcome barriers to economic well-being through workforce development, education, occupational health and economic development. With close to $300 million in annual revenue, the parent organization has government contracts in 22 states, and its acquisitions include Easterseals programs New York, Rhode Island and parts of Texas. In New Hampshire, Granite Pathways was a year into a four-year, $15.6 million contract for the youth treatment center. According to the state expenditure register, the organization has been paid $4.1 million since 2012, including just under $900,000 in the current fiscal year. Under the hub-and-spoke system the state launched this year to connect people to opioid addiction resources, Granite Pathways was awarded $5 million in federal funding over multiple years to run the two largest hubs, in Manchester and Nashua. Contracts are approved by the five-member Executive Council, and at least one member has expressed concern about Granite Pathways in the past. In June, when the council approved a $345,000 contract related to treatment for adolescents, Councilor Andru Volinsky noted that the organization already was running the opioid response hubs and called for “continued vigilance” to ensure it could keep up with all its responsibilities. “We’ve had, in particular when trying to quickly build out our substance abuse response, a number of instances where the financial management of private nonprofits was not strong. We haven’t really had strong capacity to oversee that at DHHS,” he said in a recent interview. “My concern at the time of this Granite Pathways contract was that we were again placing what I think are state responsibilities onto a private contractor, and we still haven’t built an infrastructure to oversee those private contractors.” Volinsky, a Democrat, said he doesn’t know whether the state should build out its own capacity to respond to the substance abuse crisis, or whether it’s enough to rely on outside groups and closely monitor them. “I could legitimately understand the arguments either way,” he said. “But to almost blithely continue to invest in outside agencies without oversight doesn’t make sense.” In announcing the closing of the youth treatment center, officials said the state is taking 30 days to review all of its contracts with Granite Pathways and may take further action. The health department also has increased its oversight of substance use disorder treatment centers in the last year after one of the largest facilities closed. Those efforts have included financial audits and the appointment of a new director at the Office of Program Integrity. Claim: Child advocate sees lack of oversight at youth treatment hub.

A: New Hampshire’s only residential treatment center for teens struggling with addiction operated with an apparent lack of oversight before it was shutdown earlier this month, the director of a state watchdog office said Tuesday.
****
Q: Paragraph: The bill, which was introduced by the City Council and has the backing of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, would make New York City, which already has the highest cigarette taxes in the nation, the first big city or state to set the smoking age at 21. Currently, individuals must be 18 to buy cigarettes. Eight in 10 adult smokers in the city started smoking regularly when they were below the age of 21, and most smokers who are under age 18 obtain cigarettes from individuals who are just a few years older than them, city officials said. While an increase in cigarette taxes contributed to a 15-point drop among youth smokers from 1999 to 2007, the number of high-school-aged smokers has held steady at about 8.5 percent over the last six years. Cigarette packs sold in New York City currently carry a state tax of $4.35 and a city tax of $1.50 - making it the most expensive city in the nation to be a smoker. “Too many adult smokers begin this deadly habit before age 21,” City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said. “By delaying our city’s children and young adults access to lethal tobacco products, we’re decreasing the likelihood they ever start smoking, and thus, creating a healthier city.”  The bill marks the latest effort in the city’s decade-long fight to discourage smoking, which the city’s health commissioner, Thomas Farley, said was the most significant cause of preventable death in the city. In 2003, Bloomberg outlawed smoking in bars and restaurants, and smoking has since been banned in other public places, including parks. Quinn, who is running to become the city’s next mayor, made clear that she would continue Bloomberg’s aggressive public health agenda - which has led his detractors to dub him the “nanny mayor.”  While most of the city’s anti-smoking initiatives have originated with Bloomberg, the mayor did not join Quinn in making the announcement on Monday, instead sending Farley to say that the mayor looks forward to signing the bill into law. Every U.S. state prohibits retailers from selling tobacco products to minors and in most states the smoking age is set at 18. Four states - Alabama, Alaska, New Jersey and Utah - require that a cigarette purchaser be at least 19 years old. In New York, Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island have already boosted their legal age for buying cigarettes and other tobacco products to 19. Nearly all tobacco use starts in childhood and adolescence, according to the 2012 report by the U.S. Surgeon General, which declared smoking a “pediatric epidemic” both in the United States and globally. According to the report, 99 percent of all first use of tobacco occurs by age 26. The report also found that if youth and young adults manage to avoid smoking or other tobacco products, very few will begin smoking after that age. Evidence suggests that once youth start smoking, many find it hard to quit. Of all adult cigarette smokers in the United States who smoke daily, 88 percent started smoking by age 18, according to the report. Currently, about one out of four seniors in high school - youth aged 17 or 18 - smoke on a regular basis. Among those who continue smoking, half will die 13 years earlier than non-smoking peers. It was not immediately clear how the tobacco industry would respond to the proposed legislation, which Quinn said she hoped would become a model for the rest of the country. “Our companies follow the law whatever it is in any jurisdiction,” said Jane Seccombe, spokeswoman for Reynolds American Inc, the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, American Snuff Co and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. “We believe no minors, however they’re classified in those jurisdictions, should be able to access tobacco products.”  She declined to comment on any potential sales impact from changes in the minimum age. Claim: New York City wants to ban cigarette sales to people under 21.

A:
New York City took the first step on Monday in outlawing sales of cigarettes to anyone under age 21, in an effort to reduce smoking among the age group in which most smokers take up the habit.
****