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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: No discussion of costs, something we always look for and wish would be provided. As already noted, the story explained that the drug “isn’t a magic bullet. The study showed that 37 percent of women who got weekly injections of it delivered prematurely, compared to 55 percent of women who got injections of a placebo.” Good discussion of concerns and ongoing monitoring of the drug’s safety. The story explains the drug “isn’t a magic bullet. The study showed that 37 percent of women who got weekly injections of it delivered prematurely, compared to 55 percent of women who got injections of a placebo.” No disease-mongering of prematurity or its consequences. The medical director of The March of Dimes was quoted throughout. (Although they are seen as having a very pro-progesterone slant that is not held by consumer/advocacy/health policy/maternity care groups in UK, Australia, and Canada. in those countries surveys of providers uniformly get low utilization responses with the reason stated being need for more data. Similar surveys of US providers (specialty and generalists) show the vast majority use >70% (as opposed to low double digits in more evidence-driven countries) and that mission creep has started. Indications for which it is not tested see regular use in the US.) There was at least the historical perspective on “the last drug thought to prevent premature birth – a synthetic estrogen called diethylstilbesterol, or DES.” The focus of the story is FDA approval of the drug. Good historical context, explaining that “Interestingly, the drug is not new — it’s just taken a long and circuitous route to approval.” It’s clear the story didn’t rely solely on a news release. Claim: FDA Approves First Drug To Prevent Preterm Births

Answer: Given that 50% of care is covered by Medicaid and 49% by private payors, the costs for this drug are invisible to the individual. It is administered in clinic or by home health nurses and does not typically have a co-pay structure although patients will sometimes tell providers they can’t afford it. News of new drug approvals can be washed over with giddy hype. But not in this story, which offered perspective, context and restraint.


Question: Paragraph: Cost is not a component of this story. That is an issue, as the story compares three weight-loss surgical options for morbidly obese individuals, and readers might well be interested in the economics. Also, it would be useful to discuss the costs of not having surgery in the matched population. The story does a nice job of making the weight loss comparisons—both over time for gastric bypass surgery and across surgical options—clear. The story makes no mention of harms. Bariatric procedures can lead to an array of complications that are worth considering. And on the flip side, it’s worth noting that research also has indicated that bariatric surgery can both extend quantity and quality of life when compared to not having surgery. Details of the two-part study conducted here are included and clearly described. And we were also pleased to see several study limitations discussed: “For example, the study included mostly men, so the findings may not apply to women.” That said, we do wish more had been said about the study participants, such as average body mass index levels before and after the surgeries. Morbid obesity is a major and growing health issue with frustratingly few treatment options. Sources are clearly identified, along with information about their links to the study itself (one scientist was the study’s lead researcher, and the other quoted in the story was independent). This is another strong point of the story. The study compared the longer term weight-loss outcomes of the three primary bariatric surgical procedures. The story doesn’t make it readily clear how accessible these surgeries are, and who is a good candidate for one. Typically, these procedures are for people over a certain body-mass index, for example. And insurance coverage may or may not pay for it. The story is clear that this study contributes to a growing set of data about long-term weight-loss effects of these surgeries. Duke Medicine issued a news release, and the HealthDay story does not rely solely on it. Claim: Weight-Loss Surgery Sheds Pounds Long Term

Answer: Bariatric surgeries have been identified as perhaps the most successful means for people who are morbidly obese to lose weight, and use of these procedures is increasing, according to the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Information about whether the weight-loss results last, and for how long, is a useful addition to the growing medical literature on these surgeries. The study described here by HealthDay speaks directly to the issue in a couple of well-designed analyses, and the story does a good job of explaining both the methods and the results. Missing from an otherwise good narrative is information about the risks of these procedures, as well as their costs and overall availability to the general public. Obesity is a major health issue in the United States, and the use of bariatric surgical procedures is being used increasingly for those who are morbidly obese. Knowing how long people keep the weight off–and by how much—is useful for those deciding whether to opt into the procedure. Also of interest is if the health benefits, such as remission of type 2 diabetes, were sustained, though this study didn’t appear to investigate that.


Question: Paragraph: "The story included the costs of a Molesafe screening as well links to organizations offering no cost screening. To be more complete, there are three pieces of information the story could have included: the cost for yearly follow-up at Molesafe, whether or not Molesafe screening would be covered by some, most, or no insurance companies, and the estimated costs of such screening by a dermatologist. The story did not quantify the benefits that might be derived from increasing the number of people being screened for skin cancer. It did not include any discussion about the value of such screening in any of the settings mentioned. But it did provide some discussion around the information that fewer people are screened than recommendations would suggest and that this type of setting had the potential to increase the screening rate. The president of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery expressed his concern that ""Dermatologists consistently do better than non-dermatologists"" which could be interpreted as a suggesting that MoleSafe screening could miss lesions. A false negative is one of the harms of screening. The story should have been more explicit on this. The story could have explained that the other harm of screening is a false positive, which in this case would be where something is diagnosed as a potential cancer and the individual goes for unnecessary follow-up and/or treatment. Although the clinician who is opening this clinic and stands to gain financially from its operation stated that the process ""is proven to detect melanomas and save lives,"" the story did not contain data supporting this claim. It should be available as this sort of clinic has been in operation for several years in New Zealand and Australia under the name MoleMap. If there is no evidence about the efficacy of this particular screening system, this should have been mentioned. The story did not engage in disease mongering. In fact, it alluded to the fact that not all cancers are dangerous. This is a concept that is not often mentioned. The reporter working on this story did an excellent job of obtaining comments from people with vested interest in the disease but without connection to the clinic at the heart of the story. The comments provided a very interesting perspective on how medical professionals view competition. The story mentioned screening by dermatologists and even included links to groups conducting free screening. In addition, a side bar included information that provided information a reader could use to do a first pass screening on their own. The story explained that the first Molesafe screening center is in the process of being opened in New Jersey. It also offer links to organizations offering free screening. The story was quite clear on this being a newly available clinical setting in the United States but one which has a longer history in New Zealand. Because of the number of sources used, we assume that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release." Claim: New scan for skin cancers goes full-body route

Answer:
This was a well-done story about a new business strategy in medicine, direct to consumer diagnostic testing – in this case for skin cancer. It provided readers with a lot of information about approaches to skin cancer screening, including what they can do on their own, organizations that provide free screening, and how the medical professionals most closely associated with skin cancer screening view this new organization and its approach. While pointing out that screening is only as good as the person conducting the exam, it also highlights the fact that many people are not screened in accordance with current recommendations. However – there was no evidence presented for efficacy of the screening method use in this new facility or for traditional screens conducted by physicians. A particular flaw was the lack of discussion of harms associated with both false positives (increased surveillance and worry) and diagnosis of early cancers that would not progress, with a possible cascade of medical intervention and all that entails. Overall, the story was informative and successful in not being merely a shill for the new enterprise.