TASK DEFINITION: Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
PROBLEM: "Florida leads the nation in deaths from lightning strikes. But State Farm, one of the nation’s major insurers, says it is Georgia residents who file the most claims for lightning strikes in the country, WSB-TV reported Friday, June 5. PolitiFact Georgia was intrigued and decided to dig a little deeper. We began by contacting Justin Tomczak, a State Farm spokesman. He sent us data showing Georgia was No. 1 in 2014 for lightning-related claims both in number (3,709) and total dollar value ($16.3 million). Texas was second, Alabama at third, Louisiana at fourth and Illinois at fifth. STATE Reported Count Paid Indemnity  Georgia 3,709 $16,301,952 Texas 2,201 $14,160,258 Alabama 1,902 $10,930,264 Louisiana 1,707 $10,930,264 Illinois 1,669 $8,030,507 . ""This is the third year in a row that Georgia has been ranked No. 1,"" Tomczak said. Most of the lightning claims were surge- or power-related, the spokesman said. Damages generally resulted from power surges in electrical wiring, TV cable or phone lines in homes or businesses, he said. As to why Georgia has the most claims, Tomczak said, ""there is no simple answer. However, many of the lightning claims are concentrated in the Southeastern United States, and Georgia has one of the highest populations in this area."" John Jensenius, lightning safety specialist with the National Weather Service, said the population density in metro Atlanta may be a factor in Georgia’s high claim rate. The denser the population the more likely lightning will strike a house, Jensenius said. The Insurance Information Institute, in conjunction with State Farm, compiles a list each year of the top 10 states for homeowners insurance lightning losses by number of claims. In 2013, the institute listed Georgia as highest with 11,184 lightning-related insurance claims from homeowners. Its 2014 report is due out within days, a spokeswoman said. (Georgia was No. 1 for 2012 with 3,844 claims totalling $21.5 million and for 2013 with 2,969 claims totalling $14.9 million, according to State Farm). Nationwide, lightning strikes cost about $674 million in homeowners insurance losses in 2013, down 30.5 percent from 2012, according to the institute. From 2007 to 2011, local fire departments across the country responded to an average of 22,600 fires a year that were started by lightning, according to the National Fire Protection Association. These fires caused an average of $451 million in direct property damage and nine civilian deaths a year, an NFPA analysis shows. Lightning deaths  Florida led the nation for lightning deaths in 2014 with six, followed by Wisconsin with three. Georgia, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado and Massachusetts each had two deaths. Seven additional states -- California, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Texas -- reported one lightning death in the year. The 26 lightning deaths in 2014 followed a record low of 23 set in 2013. The National Weather Service said deaths from lightning strikes averaged 33 a year from 2004 to 2013 and, going back over the last 30 years, an average of 51 people died each year after being hit by lightning. The significant decline in lightning deaths has been attributed to fewer farmers working in the fields, technological advances, improved safety standards and protection. As of the June 1, 2015 there have been six lightning fatalities, two in North Carolina and one each in Iowa, Florida, New Mexico and West Virginia, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). WSB-TV meteorologist Brian Monahan said lightning strikes occur most often in Georgia during the summer months when the high pressure area out in the Atlantic around Bermuda pumps in warm, humid air, creating those all-too-familiar afternoon and evening thunderstorms. A secondary spike of lightning strikes also occurs in the severe weather seasons of March to early May and around October and November, when the air is still warm and humid enough to support storms, Monahan said. Our ruling State Farm says Georgia residents file the most claims for lightning strikes in the country. There’s evidence this has been the case last year and the two previous years."

SOLUTION: Georgia residents file the most insurance claims for lightning strikes in the country.

PROBLEM: The story doesn’t mention cost at all. Since Lucentis can cost $2,000 per injection, that’s a significant oversight. It would also be useful to tell readers how Lucentis injections compare with the cost of laser treatment. The benefits are, for the most part, reasonably well explained. But those explanations lack numbers to back them up and are overstated in at least one place. “One benefit discussed in the release is that study participants who received laser treatment were more likely to suffer peripheral vision loss than participants who were treated solely with Lucentis — although this isn’t quantified. A second benefit was that participants who received laser treatment were more likely to require subsequent surgery to remove blood from the eye — and this was quantified. But the release pushes things a bit when it comes to vision, or visual acuity. The release states: “At two years, vision in the Lucentis group improved by an average of about half a line on an eye chart, compared with virtually no change in the laser group.” But here’s how the journal article puts it: “There was no statistically significant visual acuity difference between the ranibizumab and PRP [laser] groups at 2 years. The language in the journal article itself stresses that what was being evaluated was whether Lucentis was at least as good as laser treatment — and they found that, after two years, the visual acuity of patients who took Lucentis (and had no laser treatment) was as good as patients who had the laser treatment. The release could have simply stated this and avoided confusion. In short, this was a close one — but the lack of numbers on peripheral vision and the overstatement of the visual acuity results make this a “Not Satisfactory.” The release mentions that one study volunteer in the Lucentis group developed an eye infection and stated that “serious systemic adverse events,” namely cardiac arrest and stroke, occurred at similar rates among the two groups undergoing the two different procedures. We’ll rate that satisfactory for the disclosure although the release might have gone even further by mentioning the other side effects named in the study including inflammation and elevated intraocular pressure which occurred in both treatment groups. The release does a good job of describing the study design, the number of participants, and the fact that this was a randomized clinical trial. A few words about the limitations of the study — e.g. the investigators and patients could not be masked to which treatment they were getting, would have be useful as well. No disease mongering here. The release does tell readers that the study was funded by the National Eye Institute. However, it does not make clear that Lloyd Paul Aiello — who is quoted in the release — was also a co-author of the journal article. The release also fails to mention that several co-authors receive research funding or consulting fees from Genentech, which developed ranibizumab and markets it in the U.S., and Novartis, which markets the drug outside the U.S. The release does a good job of comparing Lucentis to conventional laser treatment for PDR and we’ll award a Satisfactory rating on that basis. However, we’d note that these are not necessarily the only two options. Lucentis is classed as an “anti-VEGF” (anti- vascular endothelial growth factor) drug — by blocking a protein called VEGF, the drug can reverse abnormal blood vessel growth and decrease fluid in the retina. Other drugs in this category include Avastin and Eylea. Are those drugs under consideration for trials related to PDR treatment? If so, it’s worth mentioning — particularly since Avastin costs around $60 per dose, as compared to Lucentis’s $2,000 per dose. The release notes that Lucentis is already used to treat other diabetes-related eye problems, and “should be considered a viable treatment option for people with PDR.” The clinical trial at issue here appears to be the first to look at the use of Lucentis as a treatment for PDR, particularly in a randomized study with direct comparison to laser treatment. However, the release doesn’t tell readers that. On the other hand, the release does make clear that this is the first significant advance in clinical treatment for PDR since the 1970s — that’s good context. The release does a good job of avoiding hype and explaining what was a complex study.

SOLUTION: Lucentis Proves Effective Against Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

PROBLEM: "Native American tribes have been among the hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic, and Joe Biden claims that President Donald Trump has not done enough to help. ""Donald Trump has failed to live up to our trust and treaty obligations to Native Americans,"" Biden told The Arizona Republic May 21. ""He took more than a month to allocate Congress’ emergency funding to tribes — and only did so after tribes sued. He has failed to provide tribes with adequate protective personal equipment and medical supplies. It’s unacceptable."" Indian treaty rights recognized and established rights, benefits, and conditions for tribes who agreed to cede millions of acres of land to the United States and to accept the United States’ protection. Under a ""trust responsibility"" legal principle, the United States federal government is obligated to ensure the survival and welfare of Indian tribes. Is Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, right that it took more than a month for tribes to get funding allocated by Congress, and that it happened only after suing the Trump administration? The chronology lines up, but omits important context. The Treasury Department has argued that payments were delayed because it is required to consult with tribes and the Interior Department regarding how much money to allocate to tribes. That consultation process started before the lawsuit over the delay in payments. A separate lawsuit filed by tribes to prevent corporations in Alaska from receiving aid has also affected the process. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, and Trump signed it into law March 27. The $2.2 trillion measure included a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund for states, local governments, and tribal governments. The law set aside $8 billion for tribal governments. The law said the Treasury secretary had to make the payments within 30 days; so by April 26, all entities were supposed to have received funds. It wasn’t until May 5 that the Treasury Department said it would begin making funds available to tribal governments. So that part of Biden’s claim adds up. By May 5, the Trump administration was facing several lawsuits by multiple tribes: for delay of payment. The lawsuits also challenged the administration for intending to direct some of the funds to the Alaska Native Corporations, which are regional and village corporations recognized under Alaska law and created by Congress as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. In the lawsuit to stop the corporations from getting a share of the $8 billion, tribes argued that corporations do not meet the statutory definition of ""tribal government,"" or ""Indian tribe"" and therefore did not qualify for the relief. A federal district judge on April 27 issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the Treasury from giving money to the corporations. Pending a final determination, the judge did not direct the Treasury secretary to immediately disburse the entire $8 billion to the tribes. In its May 5 announcement, the Trump administration said it would begin paying tribes 60% of the $8 billion, or $4.8 billion, based on population data. The remaining 40% would be paid at ""a later date"" based on employment data and tribe expenses related to COVID-19. Amounts calculated for corporations would be held back ""until pending litigation relating to their eligibility is resolved."" The Navajo Nation, which joined tribes in the lawsuit, on May 5 said the judge’s April 27 ruling ""led to the (Treasury) Department’s announcement to begin distributing funds to federally-recognized tribes."" In a separate lawsuit over the delay in the disbursement of funds, lawyers for the Trump administration argued that providing funds to tribal governments required a more involved and difficult process than the one for states and local governments. While the CARES Act imposed a 30-day deadline for funds disbursement, it also called for a consultation process among tribes and the Treasury and Interior departments. According to the Trump administration, Treasury staff spent about 2,200 hours on efforts to get tribes the appropriated money. The same federal district judge from the corporations case said that those hours of labor ""arguably should have produced better results,"" but a court intervention was not warranted. ""‘Egregious’ delay is the governing standard, and the Secretary is not there quite yet, even in the midst of a public health crisis,"" U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in a May 11 opinion. Mehta did not find that the Treasury secretary was ""lagging unreasonably"" behind in delivering the funds. ""The Secretary has not been ‘twiddling his thumbs’,"" he said, citing language from a precedent. Mehta said he would not give the Treasury department a deadline for disbursing the rest of the funds, but if it took the department double the amount of time Congress directed for the disbursement, ""then the question of egregiousness becomes a closer one than it is today."" Biden said Trump ""took more than a month to allocate Congress’ emergency funding to tribes — and only did so after tribes sued."" It did take more than a month for tribes to begin receiving funds appropriated by Congress, and they began to flow after lawsuits were filed against the Trump administration. But a consultation process for disbursing the funds began before the administration was sued."

SOLUTION:
Joe Biden Says President Donald Trump “took more than a month to allocate Congress’ emergency funding to tribes — and only did so after tribes sued.”