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: "Accusations about the responsible party behind the United States’ struggle to accelerate coronavirus testing have come from every which way and the blame has fallen, often inaccurately, on the shoulders of different public officials. In a March 13 tweet, President Donald Trump said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied its testing system for decades but wasn’t prepared for a large scale pandemic, an issue that was complicated by policy changes made by former President Barack Obama. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., retweeted Trump’s remark and added his own comment: ""Trump is once again trying to blame the previous administration for the number of tests available. This is his #DailyLie."" U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, retweeted Schumer’s remark and said: ""It’s not Obama’s fault and it’s not Trump’s fault. We have stringent FDA regulations, long in place, that created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly."" PolitiFact looked at a different Trump claim blaming Obama for a lack of testing. We also looked at a claim from Democrat Joe Biden about the Trump administration rejecting tests from the World Health Organization (they were never offered). Trump also inaccurately stated that any individual who wants to be tested for the coronavirus can get a test. We wanted to dig deeper into Crenshaw’s claim, which attributes the delays in the availability of widespread testing to Food and Drug Administration regulations. Justin Discigil, spokesman for Crenshaw, pointed to articles from ProPublica, the New Yorker, The Atlantic and the Washington Post, all of which highlighted the role FDA regulations played here. He added: ""Just to be clear – nowhere did we say that these regulations were the sole/only reason for the testing issue, we said that they created barriers."" A timeline of events The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States came at the end of January, when a man in Washington state developed symptoms after returning from a trip to Wuhan. One month later, federal health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it was inevitable that the U.S. would experience a spread of the virus and urged people to take precautions. In these early days of the virus, tests were not widely distributed to local and state laboratories. Instead, testing for the new coronavirus was conducted almost entirely by the CDC — samples collected at the local level were sent to the agency. Initial test kits developed by the CDC for use in local and state labs were flawed and produced inaccurate results in some labs, meaning they couldn’t be distributed. As the agency worked to correct the tests, health officials turned to the FDA. The U.S. Association of Public Health Laboratories submitted a letter asking the agency to use ""enforcement discretion"" and authorize local and state labs to develop and use their own tests. During a public health emergency, labs and drug manufacturers must seek an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA to use diagnostic tests and medical treatments that have not gone through the typical clearance process — to share them faster in the emergency. (These authorizations were begun in 2004 under President George W. Bush.) For laboratory-developed tests, like the ones in question, FDA policy has stated that they cannot be used in clinical diagnoses without the FDA’s approval during an emergency. Although the goal of these regulations is to ensure only accurate lab tests are conducted, health officials have said they prevented them from quickly responding to the virus. One doctor in a Seattle lab described the process for getting an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA and said the agency asked for a level of testing that didn’t make sense in the context of an emergency, according to a GQ profile. A doctor in North Carolina told NBC News that she had developed a test using the World Health Organization’s protocol but had yet to receive the use authorization from the FDA, putting the state ""way behind"" in its ability to test patients. On Feb. 29, the FDA announced a change in the process: Labs would still need to seek the agency’s approval for their tests, but the labs could begin testing while waiting for the official green light. On March 16, (three days after Crenshaw made his claim) the FDA announced another change to its policies and put state officials in charge of coronavirus tests developed by laboratories in their states, meaning labs would engage with state officials and not the FDA. It also removes the requirement for these labs to apply for an Emergency Use Authorization for their tests. The changes also expand which labs and manufacturers are included in FDA guidelines and which kinds of tests can be developed. ""We believe the unprecedented policy set forth in today’s updated guidance, which addresses laboratories and commercial manufacturers, will help address these urgent public health concerns by helping to expand the number and variety of diagnostic tests, as well as available testing capabilities in health care settings, and reference and commercial laboratories,"" reads a release from the agency. After the changes After the FDA announced changes to its policies, Labcorps and Quest Diagnostics both announced plans to start testing for the new coronavirus, crediting changes in federal policy with their ability to do so. ""We applaud the FDA for providing the flexibility for innovative, quality lab developed tests to be brought to patients and providers quickly to advance effective response to the coronavirus outbreak,"" said Steve Rusckowski, chairman and chief executive officer of Quest Diagnostics, in a statement. But even as state and local authorities move to ramp up testing, the number of available tests is still lacking. In Austin, for example, there is still a gap between available test kids and demand for testing, as officials prioritize testing for health care workers, people living in nursing homes and people at high risk for complications from the virus. Our Ruling Crenshaw said in a tweet that longstanding FDA regulations ""created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly"" for the coronavirus. Crenshaw’s statement is accurate. FDA procedures adopted in 2004 meant laboratories had to seek the agency’s approval before developing and using tests in communities, a policy many health care officials have said prevented the country from taking early action in response to the novel coronavirus. It is important to keep in mind that other factors have contributed to the low levels of testing for the virus, beyond the FDA regulations. But Crenshaw’s statement is accurate." Claim: Dan Crenshaw Says longstanding Food and Drug Administration regulations “created barriers to the private industry creating a test quickly” for the coronavirus.

Answer: Food and Drug Administration regulations in place since 2004 require labaratories to get an Emergency Use Authorization from the agency to use diagnostic tests and medical treatments that haven't gone through the typical clearance process. The policy was intended to speed up the process, but researchers reported significant delays between seeking an application and getting approval and these regulations played a role in that. The FDA has since changed the regulations to allow labs to start utilizing tests before receiving clearance.


Question: Paragraph: A bill that would allow trained pharmacists to administer the influenza vaccine to children 12 years and older cleared the General Assembly’s Public Health Committee in a 17-7 vote this year, but it later died on the Senate calendar due to inaction. Bill supporter, Nathan Tinker, CEO of the Connecticut Pharmacists Association, said his organization doesn’t plan to push hard for it again in the next regular legislative session because he is worried the debate over the General Assembly’s efforts to scrap a religious exemption for some vaccines will ultimately spill over into discussions about the flu shot and likely doom the bill in the short, three-month session. “There is a community of people who are concerned about the impact or potential impact, whether real or perceived, about vaccines,” Tinker said. “And they get a lot of attention from legislators and that can make it difficult.” When the new legislative session opens in February, lawmakers are expected to consider ending the state’s longstanding religious exemption after newly released data showed a continued decline in immunization rates for measles, mumps and rubella among kindergarteners. That proposal has already met resistance and some of the concerns raised are like the ones voiced during this year’s discussion of the flu vaccine bill. Legislators were flooded with testimony earlier this year from parents with concerns about whether making the vaccine more convenient could lead to injuries that pharmacists might not be trained recognize. Others questioned the motives of the pharmaceutical industry and necessity of flu shots. Dr. Sandra Carbonari, a primary care pediatrician in Waterbury and the medical director of the Connecticut Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, also opposed the bill, but for different reasons. She questioned whether state regulations for providing the flu vaccine to children who receive Medicaid benefits might ultimately make the shot too expensive, and whether DPH’s vaccine program can handle a large increase in the number of providers. She also noted that immunizing a child can be complicated. “Determining the appropriate vaccine for a pediatric age patient is not simple and requires accurate information about the medical history and current state of health,” she said in written testimony. Supporters of the flu shot bill argue that allowing parents to drop by a pharmacy, rather than make an appointment with a pediatrician, would ultimately lead to higher flu immunization rates. The bill had the support of the state’s Department of Public Health, which noted three children in Connecticut died from flu-related complications during the 2017-18 flu season. Pharmacists in Connecticut are currently allowed to vaccinate people 18 years or older. According to DPH, individuals under 18 can be administered the flu vaccine by advanced practice registered nurses at retail locations, such as a CVS MinuteClinic. Sen. Heather Somers, of Groton, the top Senate Republican on the Public Health Committee who co-sponsored this year’s bill, stressed that the legislation is voluntary and requires the consent of a parent or guardian. Somers contends the legislature just ran out of time to act on the bill earlier this year, and she plans to resurrect it when lawmakers convene again in February for the 2020 session. “This is something that saves lives,” said Somers, who helped to organize a mobile flu clinic in her district last year. “I think accessibility is key in our health care system.” Claim: Bill allowing pharmacists to give kids the flu shot at risk.

Answer: The contentious debate about whether Connecticut lawmakers should scrap a religious exemption for certain childhood vaccinations could inadvertently end up sinking efforts to make the flu vaccine more accessible to children.


Question: Paragraph: Unfortunately, like the earlier Times story, the WSJ story doesn’t mention costs, either those associated with taking prescription or over-the-counter drugs to treat insomnia or those associated with cognitive behavioral therapy. The closest the story comes to mentioning cost is when it notes that one problem with the use of prescription sleep aids is that insurance may not cover long-term use; this would have been an obvious point at which to note how expensive these drugs can be. The story suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy can be effective after as few as two sessions, but it doesn’t say how many sessions the average patient requires, how expensive those sessions are likely to be nor how likely it is that insurance would cover this type of therapy. The story notes that one study of cognitive behavioral therapy showed that it reduced chronic insomnia and helped patients function more effectively during the daytime for up to two years. However, it does not specify whether the relief from chronic insomnia meant that patients had no bouts of insomnia or simply had less prolonged instances of insomnia, nor does it quantify how much improvement patients experienced in daytime functioning. In its discussion of chemical sleep aids, the article provides no specifics about effectiveness; rather, it focuses on the mechanisms by which the prescription drugs encourage sleep. (For an example of how to provide more specifics, see this criterion in our review of the Times’ story on this same data.) The article focuses on why many doctors now recommend cognitive behavioral therapy rather than drugs as the first-line treatment for insomnia. As such, it does an excellent job of laying out all the negative potential side effects of anti-insomnia drugs, both prescription and over-the-counter. Given the seriousness of these potential harms – including fatigue, sleep-walking and -eating, impaired balance and increased risks of falls and motor vehicle accidents and possibly even dementia – this careful discussion of harms provides a valuable public service. Cognitive behavioral therapy does not appear to cause any harm, a point the story might have made more clearly, especially given that it describes the benefits as lasting for “up to two years,” which could lead some readers to assume that CBT stops working after a relatively short time. Nonetheless, overall, the article is more than adequate in its discussion of the harms of the two approaches. This story is not focused on one specific study, but it notes that the American College of Physicians reviewed 15 years’ worth of scientific evidence before issuing guidelines recommending that drugs should be used to treat insomnia only if cognitive behavioral therapy has failed. More could have been said about how thorough the review was that contributed to the guidelines, and if there were any notable gaps in research that limit the findings. The story does not exaggerate either the frequency or the severity of insomnia. The story had several independent sources and we detected no conflicts of interest. The primary focus of this story is explaining why cognitive behavioral therapy is the better alternative for treating insomnia due to the negative side effects of insomnia drugs. The story also includes a great deal of practical information about “sleep hygiene,” as well. The story notes that CBT can be provided by any trained therapist or nurse. The story could have been more helpful if it had specified how common this training is and how a patient seeking CBT could go about finding a health care professional trained in the technique. The article also might have mentioned that systematic analysis of studies has shown that even web-based versions of cognitive behavioral therapy can effectively treat insomnia, making it even more widely available. The story does not suggest that cognitive behavioral therapy is new. It does, however, refer to the relatively new (as of May 2016) American College of Physicians guidelines recommending cognitive behavioral therapy over drug treatment for insomnia. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Can’t Get to Sleep? Lay Off the Drugs

Answer:
This story explains why those suffering from insomnia should take heed of the American College of Physicians’ recommendation to use cognitive behavioral therapy as a first-line treatment, before turning to prescription or over-the-counter drugs. Rather than focusing on the benefits of cognitive behavioral therapy, as a New York Times story we reviewed earlier this year did, the Wall Street Journal story lays out the serious side effects associated with insomnia drugs, providing a clear and easily understood discussion of why drug treatment should be considered a last resort, to be used only by those for whom cognitive behavioral therapy has failed. However, the story would have been stronger if it had discussed the costs of treatments, and provided more specific numbers on how beneficial these treatment options are in clinical research. Lack of sleep is a big concern for many Americans, especially older adults. This story specifically addressed why sleep medications are not ideal for this age group, in terms of potential harms. But it didn’t dig deep enough into the data on the effectiveness of the various options. This helps readers assess the all-important question: Do the benefits outweigh the harms? And, without cost information, readers can’t answer another important question: Can I afford it?