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: In that time, at least 20 residents died and more than 100 suffered injuries after homes failed to provide care as required, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found in examining reports issued by the Georgia Department of Community Health (DCH), which licenses and inspects long-term care facilities and investigates complaints. The actual death toll may be much higher. In interviews with the newspaper, and in lawsuits, families have tied other deaths and injuries for which there were no state citations to improper care. The newspaper examined thousands of regulatory citations and hundreds of police reports from 2015 through 2018, reviewed lawsuits and interviewed dozens of people. The investigation found breakdowns in care that often were rooted in inadequate staffing, poor training or efforts to cut costs. In some cases, seniors tried to summon staff for help and got no response for hours, wandered away from facilities unnoticed, or languished in unsanitary and hazardous conditions. Others fell repeatedly, suffering bruises, bloody faces and broken bones. Some suffered in pain for days without treatment. In some cases, caregivers physically, verbally and sexually abused residents. Georgians seeking care for aging family members pay thousands of dollars a month to facilities that have popped up across the state in recent years promising luxurious amenities and top-flight attentiveness. Many offer to provide safe, consistent care. But the reality, is that too often thin staffs are overwhelmed, seniors have been treated callously or ineptly, and safeguards have been ignored, the investigation discovered. In a 2016 case, it took an aide at a Savannah facility 26 minutes to respond to an emergency call from a resident who had diabetes and high blood pressure. The resident was unconscious by that time. Another 19 minutes elapsed before anyone called 911. When the ambulance made it to the hospital, the resident was pronounced dead. In October 2018, a 92-year-old woman was repeatedly bitten by ants at a facility in Sandy Springs. The upscale facility failed to eradicate the insects that had been reported in her room a week earlier. Then, over two consecutive days, ants attacked the woman in bed. She died days later. Though abuse is less common than neglect, police and DCH records showed that more than 100 residents reportedly were abused by workers of assisted living and large personal care homes over the four years the newspaper’s investigation covered. Records showed that at home near Athens, a worker in 2017 hit an 86-year-old woman with dementia who tried to leave the facility, bloodying her nose and bruising a cheek. The same worker was accused of pulling an 84-year-old resident’s hair and striking her. A facility in Decatur received a state citation in March 2018 after an aide was accused of abusing a resident late at night. Nine months earlier, a separate allegation of abuse involving two other employees surfaced on the night shift. Will Johnson, the elder abuse prosecutor with the Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council, told the newspaper that elder abuse and neglect is “not acceptable in our society, in our state, anywhere.” “No one who has lived their life and reached 70, 80, 90 years of age, raised a family, contributed to society — they should never be left to rot in a bed or be bashed in the face or have all of the money that goes to their care squandered,” Johnson  said. State Rep. Sharon Cooper, R-Marietta, said, “I’m saddened for the people that were injured, and I’m appalled for humanity in general that our elders would be treated this way.” “Certainly, as a state, we need to intervene,” said Cooper, who chairs the House Health and Human Services Committee. Top officials at DCH refused repeated requests over several months to meet with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. After the newspaper provided its findings to DCH, a spokesman again declined an interview, saying it wasn’t in their “best interest.” The agency would only answer questions submitted in writing. While officials didn’t directly address some questions, DCH Commissioner Frank W. Berry said the agency manages a heavy workload and is always seeking ways to improve and carry out its mission. “The health and well-being of Georgians is always our top priority,” Berry wrote. A 2011 state law paved the way for assisted living communities, expanding choices for families whose only options previously were personal care homes, which serve seniors who need help with meals and medication reminders, or nursing homes for those requiring intense assistance. Assisted living facilities allow a higher level of care from staff who can administer medication and assist residents who need help moving around. The 2011 legislation and the rapid graying of the population have led to facilities’ taking in more residents who in their 80s and 90s who have chronic care needs. While facilities market an active lifestyle, some have residents who can’t push their own wheelchairs or who need assistance to get out of bed, dress or eat. Some residents are unable to speak. The state cited facilities 238 times for admitting residents with conditions and illnesses that staff could not handle. At the same time, the for-profit companies that dominate the industry have incentives to keep their costs low, which translates to minimal staffing, said Catherine Hawes, Regents Professor Emeritus at the Texas A&M Health Science Center and a nationally recognized expert on long-term care. “It’s like - let me sit down and write a prescription for disaster,” she said. “You’re writing a prescription for abuse and neglect.” ___ Information from: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, http://www.ajc.com

SOLUTION: Allegations of neglect, abuse at Georgia elder facilities.

PROBLEM: P&G, with roughly $68 billion in annual revenue, said it has invested millions in creating and testing refills for detergents over the years and is now trying to push in to mainstream beauty and body care refills – which are virtually  unheard of. It recently began offering some Olay face-cream jars with refill pouches on Olay.com, telling Reuters it has plans to expand the sales of the pouches in Europe early next year. “We’re learning on our legs so I don’t know that we’re in a position to say, ‘Hey, here’s the magic to selling refills,’” P&G spokesman Damon Jones said. Beauty products retailer The Body Shop, owned by Brazil’s Natura Cosmeticos SA NATU3.SA, says it plans to roll out “refill stations” in its stores globally next year, allowing shoppers to buy reusable metal containers to fill with Body Shop shower gels or creams. The company had offered refills at its stores in the early 1990s, but discontinued them in 2003, citing a lack of consumer demand. Unilever, which has set targets for reducing and recycling plastic by 2025, in October announced the planned launch of “refill sticks” of deodorants under its Dove line of personal care products on Loopstore.com. The website, operated by recycling company TerraCycle, offers consumers the chance to buy some household products in ultra-durable packaging with refills delivered to their doors, milkman-style. Across the consumer goods industry, results for refillable products have been mixed so far as many shoppers are far too set in their ways to be easily weaned from living in a throwaway culture. While refills are less expensive to purchase - generally priced at 20% to 30% less per item than the containers they are aimed to replenish, according to Unilever - shoppers have so far, for the most part, failed to snap them up, the companies said. SC Johnson & Son Inc, marketer of Windex and Pledge, said refills and concentrates so far have not played well with either Americans or Europeans over the decade they have been offered, with unit sales of such products pretty much flat. It pulled concentrated refills for Shout stain remover off the shelves because they were not selling very well. In 2010, Unilever put 20-liter tanks to dispense detergents in Walmart Inc’s (WMT.N) British supermarket chain Asda, and provided flexible pouches for customers to refill. But with leaky machines, safety and maintenance problems and the high costs of upkeep, Unilever said the tests fell short of expectations. Asda was also unhappy because the tanks occupied a lot of space. “None of them sell very well – it is a convenience issue,” SC Johnson CEO Fisk Johnson told Reuters. Johnson said some people find it painstaking to wash and refill bottles themselves while others worry that smaller bottles filled with concentrates are less “bang-for-your-buck” than the larger ones they have used for years. Still, the privately held company said it was expanding its refill offerings this year to address concerns surrounding plastic waste and is also testing refill stations for cleaning products with UK retailer Waitrose, owned by Britain’s John Lewis [JLPLC.UL]. The Waitrose tests are showing the first signs of progress in refill sales, Johnson said, and the company is now thinking of expanding the project. Even if consumers are comfortable using refills for some household goods, it is more complicated to sell them for products like Pantene shampoo and Olay creams, P&G spokesman Jones said. For instance, with beauty products, the look and feel of packaging is a big factor in creating and maintaining customer loyalty, while delivering an environmental benefit, he said. Some shoppers say they want to buy refillable products, but that the offerings are not available at many stores. Earlier this year, dozens of consumers took to social media to urge The Body Shop to bring back its refill counters. “Refill, refill, refill!” Twitter user @JaiChipperfield said on July 22, joining a thread in which several other shoppers demanded the return of refills. “Seems to me that judging by these comments your customers want to see the return of refills,” @JaiChipperfield added. “Me too, it would be brilliant to see that return.”  The Body Shop eventually responded to those pleas. “Now with the renewed focus on sustainability, we believe it is the right time to return with it,” Body Shop spokeswoman Lucy Muircroft told Reuters this week.

SOLUTION: Procter & Gamble, rivals take refills into beauty aisle.

PROBLEM: "The story mentioned that the test carried a $399 price tag. Of course there are larger cost perspectives. If this diagnostic test truly has value, it might lead to more targeted therapy – perhaps decreasing overall medical costs. If it is a poor test, it may increase medical costs beyond the initial $399 for the test itself. The story included discussion about how this test might be of benefit; it did not include quantification of benefit (i.e. :how much faster could it enable a clinician to make a diagnosis?) though one of the points of the story was that the actual benefit of this test was somewhat imprecise. Lastly – the statement that any information is good is a red herring. However, we’ll again give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story discussed problems associated with false positive or false negative results. It mentioned that physicians might not have the appropriate training to understand what to do with the results of the test and could make, what an expert quoted in the story described as ""foolish decisions"" The story mentioned that this and other genetic test kits prey on individuals’ deepest anxieties. That said – there are many more harms possible. Creating the precedent for direct marketing of lab tests – even if the results go to the doctor carries significant risks. It could prey on peoples’ insecurities, cause financial harm, adversely affect the patient-clinician relationship, and lead to other family members of test positive patients (family members without symptoms) getting a meaningless test due to worry. It was good that the story pointed out that there is little oversight for the accuracy of genetic test kits. Overall the story did a good job; it gave data such as 1% rate of genetic abnormality in unaffected vs. 3% in bipolar patients. It said, ""The report that accompanies those results instructs doctors that a positive test means patients are two to three times more likely to have bipolar disorder."" If the reporter had gone the next step, it would have been even better. For example, if someone has no symptoms of bipolar disorder, then the likelhood of current bipolar is 0% – so a 2-3 time increase in risk is still 0. For someone with many symptoms, the risk of bipolar disorder might be 50-60% (rough estimate) and an abnormal test might increase that substantially. Granted, interpreting the quantitative data for readers may be difficult but it would have been helpful to put it into terms that were easier to understand. But in discussing why the test was useful, the company founder said that it was important ""even if it just helps a little bit"". The story should have noted that this lack of quantification of benefit is problematic. We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story included quotes not only from the scientist who developed the test discussed, but from several experts in the field. The story did not make clear how diagnosis of bipolar disorder with the test vs. without the test differed. However it would appear that this may have been intentional as it isn’t actually clear how diagnosis of this disorder is dramatically altered in the era where this test is available. The story mentioned that this was a commercially available product. (Though it failed to mention that this test would likely not be covered by insurance, it also did not imply that it would. This, of course, will affect availability.) The story was clear that the test for bipolar disorder it described had been commercially available for about a month. It also mentioned that there about 1000 other test kits (for other genetic traits) which are available. Does not appear to rely on a press release."

SOLUTION:
At-home gene test stirs up debate