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: "Cost data for flibanserin is not provided. Some projection of cost should be available for any drug this far along in Phase III trials – and for which the company has already begun marketing campaigns. If not from the company, then from stock analysts. The story properly quantifies the reported benefits in absolute terms which allows the reader to see that they are small. (Results are described in Quality of Evidence comments.) In an interview a study researcher conceded that the absolute number of women reporting benefit was not large. The story provided statistics on common side effects including daytime sleepiness, dizziness, fatigue, anxiety, dry mouth, nausea and insomnia. These side effects resulted in 15% of those taking flibanserin vs 7% taking placebo withdrawing from the study. The story does a good job of presenting and evaluating the available evidence. Results are presented in absolute terms, for example that just under one third of women taking flibanserin reported improvement in sexual distress/desire compared to approximately one fifth of women taking placebo. In contrast, these results were presented in relative terms by the manufacturer. Except for the headline, "" ‘Female Viagra’ May Treat Low Sexual Desire"", this story avoids disease mongering and notes that ""hypoactive sexual desire disorder"" in women is a controversial diagnosis. The text clarifies that while the popular press is dubbing flibanserin as the ""female Viagra"", it is not similar to Viagra or other drugs to treat erectile dysfunction. Conflicts of interest are disclosed. The story noted that the study researcher interviewed is a paid consultant for the drug manufacturer. An alternative point of view is provided by two independent experts, a psychologist and a sex-therapist. The independent sources comment on the role that personal relationships play in sexual desire and experience which was not addressed or acknowledged by the researchers. The story indicates that an alternative drug called the Intrinsa testosterone patch is available in Europe, but not in the U.S. The story also notes a difference between these dugs; Intrinsa is a hormonal treatment compared to flibanserin which is a non-hormonal. The story indirectly informs that reader that flibanserin is not available by noting that it is in phase III clinical trials and that the manufacturer is seeking FDA approval (despite early direct to consumer marketing campaigns). The story makes it fairly clear that this is a new treatment – also for a new and controversial diagnosis. The story was apparently based on research presented in abstract form at the annual clinical meeting of the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, although this information has not been published in independently, peer-referred scientific journals. There is no direct evidence that it relied largely on a news release. In fact, the use of interviews with independent experts makes it clear that independent reporting took place." Claim: ‘Female Viagra’ May Treat Low Sexual Desire

A: "This story reports on a investigational drug, flibanserin, that is being developed to treat what is a controversial diagnosis called ""hypoactive sexual desire"" in women. The popular press has dubbed this drug ""Female Viagra"" despite that fact that it has few similarities to drugs that treat erectile dysfunction. Preliminary research examining the drug’s efficacy in treating sexual distress and/or low sexual desire were presented at the May 2010 annual clinical meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). To place the story in context, previous reports from the manufacturer claimed that flibanserin resulted in ""clinically significant"" improvement in the number of sexually satisfying events reported by women taking the drug vs. those taking placebo, an absolute difference of 0.7 events per month. The story was detailed and did a good job of presenting information in absolute terms so that the reader could clearly see that reported benefits were small and of unknown clinical significance. Good reminders that this is a controversial diagnosis and that ""some experts see it as the medicalization of what is for many women a relationship issue."""
****
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 Clinton Foundation might be committed to doing good around the world, but Hillary Clinton’s critics see it as a ripe target to bring down the presumptive Democratic nominee. Republican Donald Trump recently charged that some countries who gave money to the foundation received favorable treatment in return. For anyone who hasn’t heard about the Clinton Foundation, it’s the signature project to reduce poverty and improve global health created by former President Bill Clinton. It is part matchmaker, helping wealthy donors connect with doers, and part active participant, directly running programs, especially in health care. In an interview with Hillary Clinton, CNN’s Anderson Cooper quoted Trump and asked if her husband would break all ties with the foundation, should she become president. Clinton said she would cross that bridge ""if we come to it,"" and proceeded to give a full-throated defense of the foundation. ""I'm proud of the work that it has done,"" Clinton said in the June 8, 2016, interview. ""Nine million people have lower-cost HIV/AIDS medicine because of the work of the Clinton Foundation and my husband. We have women across the country, from Latin America and Africa -- across the world, I mean -- getting good jobs, and being able to support themselves for the first time."" We’ll focus on the first part of that statement and explore if the Clinton Foundation actually had a hand in making HIV/AIDS drugs more affordable for 9 million people? The foundation’s work on HIV/AIDS treatment dates back to 2002 with the creation of the Clinton Health Access Initiative. That was a time when some countries were paying $1,000 or more to treat each AIDS patient. The basic goal was to bring in bulk-buying to lower costs. The program consolidated both the supply of raw materials to make the drugs and the bidding to supply the finished product. The result was lower production costs and lower drug prices. Today, the initiative tracks the going price for a menu of treatments and posts them to help health departments around the world as they negotiate with drug companies. In 2014, the World Health Organization reported that by the end of 2013, more than 11.7 million people were on antiretroviral therapy in low- and middle-income countries. While the kinds of drugs have changed, the WHO said ""in the past decade the price of individual antiretroviral formulations has decreased considerably."" The treatments used in the early days have fallen from a median cost of about $600 in 2003 to about $100 a decade later. A more advanced drug combination introduced in 2005 saw a similar decline. Importantly, the WHO listed the Clinton Health Access Initiative as one of a handful of organizations collaborating on ensuring a steady supply of drugs. The partners in that effort include the biggest players, including several United Nations agencies, PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and UNITAID, a project created by  Brazil, Chile, France, Norway and the United Kingdom. UNAIDS announced at the end of May that the number of people under treatment is now closer to 17 million. Technically, the Clinton Health Access Initiative has been a separate nonprofit since 2010, but it is still integrated within the Clinton Foundation and the foundation press office still offers comments on its behalf. Clinton Health Access Initiative spokeswoman Maura Daley told us that Clinton used an old figure for the people being served by the initiative. ""The total number of patients benefitting is 11.8 million,"" she told us. Not everyone getting treatment is counted as benefiting from the initiative’s efforts. Beyond working to reduce drug costs, it also coordinates with nongovernmental organizations inside countries to distribute the drugs once they arrive. Clearly, the Clinton Health Access Initiative did not accomplish all of this on its own, but Clinton didn’t say that. Two experts in HIV/AIDS treatment, Jennifer Kates at the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Ellen ‘t Hoen call the initiative an important player. ‘t Hoen was the first executive director of the Medicines Patent Pool, a group that streamlines the production of generic antiretroviral drugs. ""Without the work of the MPP it would have been much harder for organizations like CHAI to access generic antiretrovirals,"" she said. The initiative has been faulted for failing to fully report donations from foreign governments and has filed amended returns for 2012 and 2013. Our ruling Clinton said 9 million people have lower-cost HIV/AIDS medicine thanks to the efforts of the Clinton Foundation and her husband. Bill Clinton started the foundation and its first big project was the Clinton Health Access Initiative. The program focused on using market mechanisms to reduce treatment costs. Costs have fallen dramatically and the initiative remains a key global player in maintaining a steady supply of affordable drugs. If anything, Clinton understated the number of people who have benefited from the program. Claim: Nine million people have lower-cost HIV/AIDS medicine because of the work of the Clinton Foundation and my husband.

A:
Clinton said 9 million people have lower-cost HIV/AIDS medicine thanks to the efforts of the Clinton Foundation and her husband. Bill Clinton started the foundation and its first big project was the Clinton Health Access Initiative. The program focused on using market mechanisms to reduce treatment costs. Costs have fallen dramatically and the initiative remains a key global player in maintaining a steady supply of affordable drugs. If anything, Clinton understated the number of people who have benefited from the program.
****