Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

Paragraph: "Saying Medicaid is a broken system that should not be expanded in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry and the state’s U.S. senators suggested many physicians decline to serve patients insured by the state-federal program. In an April 1, 2013, press release issued in conjunction with their joint Texas Capitol press conference, Perry and Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, all Republicans, said that nationally, Medicaid expenditures surged from 1990 to 2010, outpacing its caseload. Also, their press release said: ""Only three in 10 Texas doctors are currently accepting new Medicaid patients."" Elaborating in the press conference, Perry said: ""And we fear that number may actually decrease if expansion went through."" The 3-in-10 claim, brought to our attention by analyst Anne Dunkelberg of Austin’s liberal-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities, sounded familiar, especially after spokespeople for Perry and each senator said by email that it was based on a 2012 survey of Texas physicians by the Texas Medical Association. Preliminary results from the survey figured into one of our fact checks earlier this year. Final survey results are now compiled, Donna Kinney, the association’s lead researcher, told us by phone. Kinney said the results break out to 32 percent of Texas physicians saying they accept all new Medicaid patients and 42 percent declining all new Medicaid patients--with 26 percent limiting their new Medicaid patients. Put another way, the final results indicate that about four in 10 Texas physicians decline all new Medicaid patients while about six in 10 accept at least some new patients. ""They may accept them only in the emergency room,"" Kinney speculated. ""The limits could be anything."" Early this year, we rated the association’s claim that only 31 percent of Texas physicians accept all new Medicaid patients, compared with 67 percent in 2000. The group’s Twitter post about the figure was missing clarification that the figure came from a survey. At the time, though, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission told us that some 67 percent of the state’s physicians had accepted Medicaid at least once during a recent 12-month period. Agency spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman told us by email that 34,290 Texas physicians had claims paid by Medicaid in the fiscal year that ran through August 2011. According to the Texas Medical Board, there were nearly 51,000 practicing physicians in the state at about that time. Goodman said then that she did not have information on the share of physicians not accepting all new Medicaid patients. Brent Annear, a medical association spokesman, guided us to a March 2012 web post by the group stating that 27,917 physicians and medical residents were asked to fill out its online survey and the group fielded 1,139 responses, a 4 percent response rate. The group’s ""preliminary findings"" document says the respondents were a ""representative sample"" of all physicians. The survey reached members and non-members, Kinney told us by email. The key question lists physician reimbursement methods including private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. ""For patients covered by the following payers,"" the question says, ""does your practice currently (1) accept all new patients, (2) limit new patients that you will accept, or (3) accept no new patients?"" According to the final results, Kinney said, 32 percent said they accept all new Medicaid patients. Some 26 percent said they limit their new Medicaid patients, and 42 percent said they decline all new Medicaid patients, compared with 32 percent in 2010. For our previous check, Annear said by email that physicians have difficulties with Medicaid’s rates and bureaucratic hurdles that delay payments. The rates decreased four times from 2000 to 2011, an association spokeswoman, Pam Udall, said by email, though the state also agreed to a 25-percent boost in funds covering certain physician services provided to children on Medicaid, as part of resolving a lawsuit. We asked Kinney to speculate on why nearly 70 percent of Texas physicians submitted at least one Medicaid claim in a recent year. She said about 60 percent of the state’s physicians--including many specialists in radiology, pathology and anesthesiology--must accept Medicaid to maintain their hospital admitting privileges. Those kinds of doctors would have responded to the survey by saying they limit new Medicaid patients, she said by phone. For a ""real-world"" take, we ran the preliminary survey result by Austin opthalmologist Michelle Berger, the 2013 president of the Travis County Medical Society, which is affiliated with the medical association. Berger said by phone that the society frequently fields inquiries from individuals newly on Medicaid seeking a doctor. Berger said she stopped accepting new Medicaid patients in her practice because related paperwork proved onerous and government payments, which have not kept up with inflation, were not quickly forthcoming. Then again, she said, doctors who do not accept new Medicaid patients may still provide charity care--the result being that some low-income patients are served even though their doctors do not seek payment. Asked to appraise the Texas leaders’ declaration--that only three in 10 physicians accept new Medicaid patients--Kinney said: ""The language does matter. They should have said ‘all’"" new patients. In emails, Perry spokesman Josh Havens and Cornyn spokeswoman Jessica Sandlin each said the leaders’ statement accurately reflected the association survey. Havens added that ""you cannot continue to add context to manipulate the result you want."" Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier, also standing by the claim, said by email that the point is that Medicaid is a broken system. Our ruling Perry said only three in 10 Texas doctors currently accept new Medicaid patients. In a recent year, some 67 percent of Texas physicians submitted at least one Medicaid claim. More recently, 42 percent of the state’s physicians responding to a 2012 survey said they refuse all new Medicaid patients. Then again, 32 percent said they accept all new Medicaid patients and 26 percent said they limit such patients--signaling that 58 percent of physicians accept at least some new Medicaid patients. By not specifying that the cited ""three in 10"" reflects only doctors who accept all new Medicaid patients, Perry’s statement falls off target by nearly 30 percent. Still, it has en element of truth." Claim: Only three in 10 Texas doctors are currently accepting new Medicaid patients.
0

Paragraph: In late summer 2019, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a viral Facebook post that claimed the popular energy drinks Red Bull and Bang test positive for various illicit substances, including methamphetamines, ecstasy, and the prescription opioids OxyContin and Suboxone. The claims were posted in July by user Angie Rider Freese, who included photographs of what appeared to be a urine screen-test cup, with “Red Bull” written on the lid. We have edited her post for clarity: “Today at work a patient had a Red Bull. [I] told him they [test positive] on drug screens. He didn’t believe me. So I had him pour some in a new cup, and it [tested positive] for [methamphetamine] and [oxycodone] and [buprenorphine]. Also Bang will [test positive] for [ecstasy/MDMA].” Rider Freese subsequently deleted the post in question, but she later confirmed its authenticity with a second post in which she explained that she had taken it down because its viral spread had caused her to be inundated with friend requests and messages. Although the original post was deleted, social media users have continued to share a screenshot of it, meaning its claims continued to be promulgated. The claims were inaccurate and misleading in several ways, but they did allude (whether knowingly or not) to a flaw in some substance-testing field kits that have caused innocuous substances to incorrectly test positive for drugs such as methamphetamines. Experts told us that a false positive of this kind could, in principle, be produced in certain tests of a sample of Red Bull or other energy drinks, or a urine sample taken from a person who had consumed the beverages. However, we found no evidence of an actual pattern of such false positive test results. The first point to clarify is that neither Red Bull nor Bang nor any other energy drink contains methamphetamine, buprenorphine (often sold as suboxone), oxycodone (often sold as OxyContin), or MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy or X). What the meme alluded to (whether knowingly or unknowingly) was the phenomenon of false positives, in which a drug test incorrectly indicates the presence of a substance that is not present, either in a biological specimen (usually urine and blood) or a sample of the substance in question. The ingredients of both Red Bull and Bang can be found listed here. Despite Rider Freese’s claim that the energy-drink samples tested positive for various drugs, it’s not clear that the urine test cup in the second photograph illustrates any such positive tests. The test strips on urine screen-test cups, such as the one shown in the photograph, invariably indicate a negative result where two horizontal red bars are visible. The only clearly visible test strips in Rider Freese’s photograph show horizontal, double red lines, suggesting negative results for unidentified substances. The second misleading feature of the meme is that Rider Freese said she used a urine screen test to screen for methamphetamine, buprenorphine, and oxycodone in a sample of Red Bull. This makes little sense, because that kind of test is used to screen for illicit substances in a person’s urine, not in a beverage. Testing substances, rather than biological specimens, is done via a “presumptive substance test.” The typical use of such a test would be where police found a powder in someone’s car, which they suspected might be a prohibited substance like cocaine or heroin, so they either send a sample of the substance for laboratory testing, or conduct a field test themselves. Typically, law-enforcement agents use a type of substance testing called colorimetric testing, which involves adding a small sample of the questionable substance to a liquid solution, and inducing particular chemical reactions that cause specific changes in the color of the solution. The presence or absence of those color changes indicates the possible presence or absence of the substance being tested. The following is a helpful and relatively straightforward video guide to presumptive colorimetric drug field tests, produced by Florida International University’s (FIU) National Forensic Science Technology Center:  ﻿ These field tests are imperfect and can sometimes produce false positives. However, the preliminary or “presumptive” result they produce is typically enough to give a law-enforcement agent probable cause to make an arrest. After that, samples are typically sent to a laboratory for “confirmatory” testing, which either confirms the initial result, or shows that the initial result was a false positive. Many private companies design various kinds of field-test kits and sell them to law-enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Those kits vary in their reliability, specificity, and sensitivity, and a pattern of false positives has emerged in recent years, with various innocuous household substances showing up as illicit drugs. For example, the Marijuana Policy Project has documented cases in which chocolate tested positive for hashish, flour tested positive for cocaine, and soap tested positive for gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), which is used recreationally and as a date rape drug. In 2017, Georgia woman Dasha Fincher was arrested and imprisoned for three months, awaiting confirmatory test results, after police performed a field test on a substance that produced a false positive for methamphetamine but was in fact cotton candy. In principle, it’s possible that a sample of Red Bull, Bang, or some other energy drink could produce a false positive for one of the drugs mentioned in the July 2019 meme. However, we found no evidence of an actual pattern of Red Bull or Bang producing such false positives, which significantly undermines the claim that Red Bull “pops” for methamphetamine and Bang “pops” for ecstasy. It should also be noted once again that Rider Freese attempted to support her claims with photographic evidence of a urine test cup, which is a different test and simply would not be used to test a sample of a beverage (or any other substance) as opposed to a urine sample. Moreover, that photograph did not clearly show a positive test for any substance. It’s possible but unlikely that a urine sample provided by someone who drank a can of energy drink could test positive for methamphetamine or other drugs. Even if it did, it would only be the result of a false positive, just as in the case of substance testing. Kirk Grates, chemistry research project manager at FIU’s National Forensic Science Technology Center, told Snopes: “… There may be some analytes that are contained within these aforementioned energy drinks that could possibly cause a false positive.” Certain innocuous items have been known to cause false positives for various drugs in individuals who consume them before providing a urine sample. For example, the over-the-counter, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) ibuprofen has caused urine samples to give false positives for phencyclidine (PCP), and other NSAIDs have provided false positives for marijuana. The urine of individuals who use a Vick’s inhaler has been known to provide a false positive for methamphetamine. In principle, it’s possible that certain ingredients in Red Bull, Bang, or other energy drinks might trigger false positives for the drugs listed in Rider Freese’s meme, but we found no evidence of an actual pattern to this effect. The photographs posted by Rider Freese did not constitute evidence of a positive result for any substance, and, anyway, she claimed to have used a urine screen test cup to test a sample of Red Bull itself, rather than the urine of an individual who had consumed the drink. On the whole, we found no evidence to support the specific claims made in the meme, which was in any case expressed in confusing and misleading terms. However, the meme may have alluded (whether knowingly or unknowingly) to the possibility that the energy drinks in question, like other innocuous products, could in theory produce false-positive test results for the drugs listed in the meme, either through substance or urine testing. Claim: Red Bull and Bang energy drinks test positive for various illicit or prescription drugs in substance or urine tests
0

Paragraph: "To show that insurance companies can be callous, President Barack Obama recently cited the case of an Illinois man who Obama said had died because of an insurer's decision. ""More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care,"" the president told a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009. ""It happens every day. One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."" The man Obama was referring to was Otto S. Raddatz, who died earlier this year. But Lynn Sweet, a reporter with the  Chicago Sun-Times  , found the president was wrong to blame Raddatz's death on the insurance company. Raddatz, a restaurant owner, was insured by Fortis Insurance Co., according to congressional testimony by his sister, Peggy. In September 2004, at 59, he was diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkins lymphoma and began chemotherapy. As he was preparing for a stem cell transplant for which timing was crucial, he was told that his coverage was being rescinded due to a ""routine"" review that had found that he'd failed to disclose having gallstones and an anyeurism. Explaining that the doctor had never even told him about the discovery, and that no treatment had ever been urged, Peggy Raddatz went to the state attorney general for help. Within weeks, the attorney general's office got the decision reversed, and Raddatz was able to proceed with his transplant. The case drew national attention, including stories in Slate and on National Public Radio, and Peggy Raddatz testified twice to congressional commitees about her brother's story. But the president's version of the story was challenged by a Sept. 13, 2009, blog post by Sweet, who covers the White House for the  Sun-Times  . She noted that the transplant went ahead and Raddatz lived for another three years — an indication that the company's decision to rescind his treatment didn't cause his death. Peggy Raddatz's testimony backs this up. On June 16, 2009, Raddatz recounted the experience before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Raddatz is still angry with the insurer — in her prepared testimony, she called what the company did to her brother ""unethical"" and ""cruel"" — but she gave no indication that the delay hampered her brother's survival. At one point, the full committee's ranking Republican, Joe Barton of Texas, asked Raddatz whether her brother had received the stem cell transplant he needed. ""He did indeed receive the stem cell transplant,"" she responded. ""It was extremely successful. It extended his life approximately three-and-a-half years. He did pass away January 6th of 2009, and he was about to have a second stem cell transplant. Unfortunately, due to certain situations, his donor became ill at the last minute, and so he did pass away on January 6th. But again, (the initial transplant) extended his life nearly three-and-a-half years. And at his age, each day meant everything to him."" The White House acknowledges that the facts got garbled, but insists that the larger lessons from the story are unchanged. ""The story President Obama referenced in his speech underscores what so many Americans have learned the hard way: Insurance companies look for ways to rescind their coverage when you need it most,"" White House spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield said. ""A media account of Mr. Raddatz’s story that the president relied on in his speech confused some of the details, but the underlying point remains the same. President Obama wants to end the practice that allows insurance companies to pull insurance for individuals like Mr. Raddatz when they need it most."" In her piece, Sweet noted that a fellow  Sun-Times  reporter, Cheryl V. Jackson, talked to Raddatz after the speech, and she had no complaint with Obama's account of her brother's death. ""The point is that my brother lost his insurance coverage when he was dying,"" the article quoted Raddatz as saying. Still, the president said that Otto Raddatz's death was caused by a delay in his surgery caused by the insurer's decision to rescind his policy. But as Peggy Raddatz testified, government intervention enabled her brother to have the procedure, and he lived, despite his cancer, for another three and a half years. When Raddatz eventually died earlier this year, his sister said that his death came while waiting for a second procedure that did not happen because the transplant donor unexpectedly fell ill. Critics can still blame the insurance company for insensitivity — and it's true that the company only paid for Raddatz's treatment after the attorney general's office acted — but the evidence shows that it's inaccurate to say a delay in care caused his death." Claim: "Insurers delayed an Illinois man's treatment, ""and he died because of it."

0