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: Poor training, a lack of coordination and an overstretched military are also factors, but a new 76-point plan lays out ways to improve this, Colonel John Bradley, chief of psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, told a conference. Bradley said a team of experts spent a year interviewing troops who had attempted suicide, family members and others for the report and plan, presented last month to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is due to report to Congress in 90 days. “They tell us again and again that we are failing,” Bradley told a symposium on military medicine sponsored by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation. Each branch of the services — the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines — rushed to create a suicide prevention program, but there was no coordination. The report recommends that the defense secretary’s office take over coordination of suicide prevention efforts. On-the-ground prevention training often failed because those running the sessions did not understand their importance, Bradley said. “They are mocked and they are probably harmful,” he said. According to the report, available here 1,100 servicemen and women committed suicide in 2005 to 2009 -- one suicide every day and a half. The Army's suicide rate doubled in that time. About 1.9 million U.S. service men and women have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. “We have done all the right things but despite all the things we have done, suicide rates have risen, particularly in the Marines and Army,” said Colonel Charles Hoge of Walter Reed. “A large percentage of our servicemen, our veterans, do not come in to get help,” he added. “It is not just the perception that they will be treated differently or somehow that it will affect their career, but it is also distrust in the system and distrust that mental health professionals can help them,” Hoge added. “They don’t trust us. They believe we speak with forked tongues,” Bradley said. Most of the suicides are among young, white males, the experts said. “Marines are young, they are confident, they are aggressive,” said Lieutenant General Richard Zimmer of the U.S. Marine Corps. “They are the last ones to raise their hand and say they have a problem.”   And troops who seek mental health services can lose their security clearances, their weapons and can be taken away from duties vital to their careers, Hoge and Bradley said. When they return home from war, the skills that kept them alive under fire make them dysfunctional in civilian society, Hoge said. “There are messages that the warrior gets when they back here that they are crazy,” he said. In addition, all the services are overstretched, the report said. “The force is out of balance,” Bradley said. “The force is fatigued. Anyone who doesn’t believe that has their eyes closed.”   Hoge said physical demands can also affect the mind. Troops often operate on just 3 or 4 hours a sleep a night for extended periods. “They often have pain, chronic pain,” he said. “They have gone through all these events, including concussions. It is clear there are physical changes that happen.”   Bradley said the report calls for skills-based training for commanders, troops and their families. Claim: Military suicide prevention efforts fail: report.

A: Efforts to prevent suicides among U.S. war veterans are failing, in part because distressed troops do not trust the military to help them, top military officials said on Thursday.
****
Q: Paragraph: The news release includes information about costs. We would have liked a little more context. The release states: “The costs associated with home infusion were also consistently lower than services provided in a health care facility, with savings ranging between $1,928 and $2,974 per course of treatment.” We need to know what percentage of savings that is per course of treatment. If the whole course costs $100,000, then saving $1,928 is a pretty small percentage. If the whole course is $10,000, than a savings of $1,928 looks more substantial. We found the news release skimmed over giving crucial numbers and metrics for benefits. Separate from the cost benefit to home infusion versus hospital or clinic infusion, the release should have given us some numbers for safety. Here is what the release stated (emphasis ours): “The research showed that patients receiving intravenous therapy at home had as good or better clinical outcomes as those patients who received the same therapy in a traditional health care setting. In addition, patients overwhelmingly preferred receiving their infusion therapies at home, reporting fewer disruptions in personal schedules and responsibilities. We need numbers to demonstrate how “as good” the clinical outcomes were. We need numbers to represent “overwhelmingly preferred.” By what percentage did what number of patients demonstrate preference? This is where the release could have taken some quantitative data from the study. The word “harms” does not appear in the news release. During intravenous infusions there are complications that may arise. The release does not mention harm, even to dismiss the probability as rare. The study being reported is a systematic literature review that only considered 13 prior studies. The release does not address the limitations of a literature review or give us the total number of patients represented by the 13 studies. Only 5 of the 13 studies used in the analysis addressed outcomes. One had no comparison group (“However, no adjustment for confounders was performed, and higher OPAT success rates were likely due to purposeful selection of younger, healthier patients for OPAT therapy,” according to the published study). In another study, “IPAT patients were selected from a time period during which OPAT was not available for any patients, minimizing selection bias by the matching fact.” In any case, less than half of the studies looked at outcome data and those that did involved different diseases from different time periods, some had control groups and some did not. We don’t think the evidence is strong enough to suggest outcomes were improved. The bias inherent in CVS employees culling the studies is also concerning. A better description of the review’s search and selection process may have helped allay any concerns about studies being cherry-picked. There is no disease mongering. The release is clear that the study was done by the CVS Health Research Institute. Since this is a news release from a profit-making company that operates directly to sell services under study, we hope the readers quickly understand there is an inherent conflict. This is the equivalent of a Coca Cola study about the benefits of drinking their product. The release explains the alternatives of clinic or hospital infusion compared to home infusion. Home infusion services are widely available. Their reimbursement is not widely available. The release says “clinical outcomes and quality of care have not previously been systematically evaluated.” The release doesn’t rely on any unreasonable or unjustified language. However, we do not think the news release proves the words used in the headline that say “Home Infusion Care Improves Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life While Reducing Overall Costs.” Based on a literature review, which does not randomize people into apples-to-apples comparison, you cannot claim to show better outcomes. The release does not offer any quantified benefits to support medical outcomes and doesn’t provide quantified information about quality of life improvement. The fact that patients prefer home infusion to travel to a clinic is not by itself a proof that their lives have been improved. As we wrote in the benefits section above — we are not given numbers to prove by what amount patients prefer home infusion. Claim: CVS Health Research Institute Study Shows that Home Infusion Care Improves Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life While Reducing Overall Costs

A: This news release describes the cost savings and safety of home infusion services from 13 previously published studies compared with infusion services at a clinic or hospital. Home infusion appears safe and clinically effective while saving money in the studies reviewed, but the release does not address limits in the review. We aren’t given any numbers to back up the claims that clinical outcomes were equal and that patients preferred the home setting. The release notes that CVS has a home infusion business–Coram–so at least they make this transparent. We applaud CVS for attempting to quantify the cost savings and other potential benefits of the service — and the claim that there are advantages are likely valid — but some context/background from other, independent studies would be helpful. Besides the lack of quantification, the release doesn’t delve into the potential risks from using the home infusion service. Treatments for chronic diseases, which often require drugs administered through infusion, are one of the fastest growing costs in the US health care system. If patients can be served at home, rather than in outpatient clinics or hospitals, it saves both money and time. But outcomes studies, which compare outcomes and safety between locations, are essential to judging whether home infusion is equal to clinic or hospital infusion. This release does not go far enough with numbers to quantify benefits and risks. We also see that CVS has a conflict of interest, because they have a business arm, Coram, that sells home infusion services. It appears this release (and study) are getting attention just as Congress is “discussing how to implement a comprehensive home infusion benefit for Medicare beneficiaries.”
****
Q: Paragraph: "In a video denouncing the Senate health care bill’s slashing of Medicaid funding, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., emphasized the importance of Medicaid in battling the opioid crisis. Warren called an additional $45 billion introduced in the new Senate health care bill to fight the opioid crisis insufficient if spending on Medicaid is to decrease. ""Right now, Medicaid is the principal way we deal with opioid abuse,"" Warren said. ""One in three people who’s receiving treatment for drug problems gets some help from Medicaid to pay for that."" A reader asked us to check out her claim. Are one in three people receiving treatment for drug problems on Medicaid? When we asked her office to clarify her statement, they said Warren referred specifically to opioid users, rather than all of those who suffer from drug problems. Warren was referencing a study by Richard Frank, a professor of Health Economics in the Department of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School who testified before the Senate’s Joint Economic Committee. Frank calculated the percentage of the non-elderly adult population with opioid use disorder covered by Medicaid, which came to 34.3 percent. He used data from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the latest study from the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Thirty-four percent effectively comes to 1.029, or one, person for every three. Warren said those people are receiving treatment, but Frank’s research looked at people suffering from opioid use disorder whether or not they are currently in treatment. But other research supports her point. When the Kaiser Family Foundation ran the numbers for us, they found that of the 880,000 nonelderly adults with opioid addiction who received treatment for opioid use disorder in 2015, 39 percent were covered by Medicaid. They looked at the same information as Frank. When we extended the population size to include people of all ages, the number was similar: 38 percent. Breaking down these numbers further, 51 percent of the 880,000 treated adults got outpatient treatment only (which refers to visits that don’t warrant an overnight stay), 6 percent got inpatient treatment only, and 43 percent got both inpatient and outpatient treatment. Julia Zur, a senior policy analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, explained that outpatient treatment is more popular and that patients who start in inpatient treatment will often go on to receive outpatient treatment. When we asked why the number of those who are receiving treatment and covered by Medicaid is higher than those who are simply covered, Frank explained that Medicaid programs tend to be more generous in covering costs than private programs, and Medicaid plans cover at least some medication-assisted treatment to treat substance use disorders. The Medicaid expansion was particularly helpful in securing coverage, as it reached high-need segments of the low-income population in states that have been hard hit by the opioid crisis. Warren said that one in three people receiving treatment for opioid addiction were covered by Medicaid, basing her estimate on 34 percent of people with opioid use disorder. The number was higher when we looked at only those receiving treatment: 39 percent. So while the numbers differ slightly, one in three is still a fair estimate." Claim: One in three people who’s receiving treatment for (opioid) drug problems gets some help from Medicaid to pay for that.

A:
Warren said that one in three people receiving treatment for opioid addiction were covered by Medicaid, basing her estimate on 34 percent of people with opioid use disorder. The number was higher when we looked at only those receiving treatment: 39 percent. So while the numbers differ slightly, one in three is still a fair estimate.
****