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'.
--------
Question: Paragraph: "It starts like a joke — Gov. Rick Scott walks into a Gainesville Starbucks — but one patron wasn’t laughing. In town on April 5, 2016, to tour the recently opened factory and headquarters for biopharmaceutical company Nanotherapeutics, Scott stopped in to the coffee chain for a cup. Cara Jennings, a former Lake Worth city commissioner, saw Scott and ripped into him from her seat. Among other grievances, she accused him of denying her health care coverage with his policies. ""In fact, you cut Medicaid so I couldn’t get Obamacare,"" Jennings shouted on April 5, 2016. ""You are an a------! You don’t care about working people. You don’t care about working people. You should be ashamed to show your face around here."" When Scott countered that the state had created a million jobs since the recession, she said no one cared (read our fact-check on those jobs numbers). She then criticized his March signing of a bill denying funding for women’s health care clinics that performed abortions (read our check about that issue). We tried to reach Jennings by phone, text, email and even Facebook, but we didn’t hear back from her, so we don’t really know the specifics of her situation. That makes it difficult to gauge whether she was able to benefit from the health care law. But we can look at whether Scott cut Medicaid, the joint state and federal program to provide health insurance for the very poor, in a way that could have denied people health coverage under the Affordable Care Act. It’s not so much that he cut anything, but more that he hasn’t consistently supported expanding the program. That has indeed left hundreds of thousands of Floridians without coverage. The expansion debate Jennings told ABC Action News in Tampa after the incident that she is a single mother who worked part-time. That provides clues that she may fall into what is known as the Medicaid coverage gap. To understand why, let’s review how the Affordable Care Act is linked to Medicaid. The law originally wanted to cover uninsured people two different ways. One was to subsidize people who needed help buying insurance through state marketplaces or HealthCare.gov. The second was to expand Medicaid to cover a higher number of poorer people. Normally, to be eligible for Medicaid, your annual income has to be 44 percent of the federal poverty level (100 percent is currently $11,880 for an individual and $24,300 for a family of four). The plan was to extend that eligibility to all adults up to 138 percent of the poverty level. Technically the calculation under the law is 133 percent, but a 5 percent deduction is added on top of that. But Medicaid expansion ended up being optional after a 2012 Supreme Court ruling saying it could not be forced upon states. Currently 19 states, including Florida, have chosen not to grow the program. Recent estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that 948,000 uninsured adults in Florida would be covered by an expansion. This has led to plenty of debate among lawmakers, including a meltdown during the 2015 Florida legislative session over how to cover more lower-income residents. The Senate was open to a limited expansion, while the House opposed it altogether. But now the math really starts to get tricky. If a state doesn’t expand Medicaid, people who make 100 to 400 percent of the poverty level can get marketplace subsidies to buy private insurance. Because of the way the law was written, that leaves people making between 44 and 100 percent of the poverty level out in the cold, without assistance. Those people don’t qualify for Medicaid, and can’t get subsidies to buy insurance. That’s the so-called coverage gap. According to Kaiser, there are 567,000 people under that umbrella in the Sunshine State. Chances are good that a single mother working part time could fit into that definition. Scott, a former hospital chain executive best known for resigning amid controversy over his company defrauding Medicare, has had a spotty history with Medicaid. He initially opposed expanding the program under Obamacare, then supported it during his re-election campaign, then went back to opposing it. While the Legislature is the body that would have to approve an expansion, Scott’s opinion affects the debate. (Scott’s office did not respond to our questions about Medicaid.) He has argued with Washington over the federal government ending payments for low-income hospital patients, leaving the Legislature to use state money to plug holes in the program the last two years. Scott has also asked lawmakers to eliminate automatic increases to Medicaid hospital rates. He’s also overseen the state’s controversial transition to managed care, in which private companies took over Medicaid policies as a cost-cutting measure. Florida CHAIN, a consumer health advocacy group, told us managed care organizations had actually seen a boost in funding. And there’s the aforementioned abortion bill Scott signed on March 25. That bill prevents state and Medicaid money from going to clinics that perform elective abortions, including Planned Parenthood affiliates. But these are specific issues not necessarily related to getting access to broad health care coverage under Obamacare. While many Floridians remain uninsured without Medicaid expansion, we found no evidence of an outright cut, as Jennings said. Our ruling The activist at Starbucks said Rick Scott ""cut Medicaid"" so people can't ""get Obamacare."" Her point-blank accusation that Scott cut the program doesn’t fit. But through Scott’s inaction and the Florida House's resistance to expansion, many Floridians are not benefitting from either subsidies to buy private insurance or an expanded Medicaid. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details." Claim: "Rick Scott's Starbucks heckler Says Rick Scott ""cut Medicaid"" so people can't ""get Obamacare."

Answer: 1


Question: Paragraph: Abbott executives said the increase in manufacturing capacity will begin in the second half of this year and make room for the expected U.S. launch of the FreeStyle Libre 2. This next-generation device has been approved in Europe and is now under U.S. regulatory review. Abbott’s plans for Libre, its fastest-growing diabetes product, used by 1.5 million people worldwide, will be in focus when the company reports quarterly earnings on Wednesday. Jared Watkin, Abbott’s senior vice president for Diabetes Care, said in an interview that scale is a “huge part” of the company’s strategy for its glucose monitors. “When you’re making disposable diagnostic products, the more you can make, the lower the cost you can produce them at.”  While the Libre 2 has more features, including alarms for when blood sugar levels swing too low or high, Abbott plans to keep the U.S. price the same as its predecessor, Watkin said. Abbott started in diabetes care as a maker of inexpensive test strips and glucose meters. More recently, the company has sought to expand access to its so-called continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices - traditionally sold to type 1 diabetics in markets with generous insurance coverage. “It’s not good enough to bring this to a small, wealthy population. Diabetes is such a global epidemic that you need to bring products that can really make a dent in that,” Watkin said. Launched in Europe in 2014 and in the United States three years later, the FreeStyle Libre allows people with diabetes to track blood sugar levels without multiple daily finger sticks. A sensor attached to the back of the upper arm uses a thin filament under the skin to measure glucose every minute. Users check their blood sugar levels throughout the day by waving a reader, or smartphone, over the sensor. Major competitors Medtronic Plc (MDT.N) and Dexcom Inc (DXCM.O) critique the current Libre’s lack of automatic alerts that can help diabetics manage their disease. Yet they also are taking steps to introduce cheaper models themselves, executives told Reuters. Libre’s sales are expected to reach $1.5 billion this year, the company said. In April, Goldman Sachs estimated the global CGM market could reach $5 billion by 2021, up from $3.7 billion in 2019. Goldman projected Abbott’s 2021 sales at $2.7 billion compared to $1.7 billion for Dexcom and $894 million for Medtronic. In the past, CGMs were used almost exclusively by type 1 diabetics, whose bodies do not make insulin and who must inject themselves with the blood-sugar regulating hormone to survive. Increasingly, people with type 2 diabetes - the kind driven by obesity, lack of exercise and genetics - must also closely monitor their blood glucose and use insulin to manage their disease when it is not controlled by other medications and lifestyle changes. For now, Libre users include 1 million type 1 diabetic patients and half a million type 2. That’s a tiny sliver of the 425 million people with diabetes worldwide. Although not all diabetics need glucose monitors, “there is an element of scratching the surface at this point,” Watkin said. “The need to invest and bring up capacity is, we believe, going to be an ongoing activity for us.”   Two 14-day Libre sensors, a month’s supply, retail for $109. Abbott says most of its patients are commercially insured, and many pay as little as $10 out of pocket. In the United States, the company says, more than half of people in commercial health plans are covered, as well as any eligible diabetic person on Medicare, the federal program for the elderly and disabled. The device is also approved in 45 other countries, including Germany, Japan, Brazil, China and the United Arab Emirates. Medtronic told Reuters it offers a discounted price of $345 per month for uninsured patients. The company estimates that the typical insured patient pays $50 a month. Medicare does not cover the device. Dexcom’s G6 sensors retail online, with a discount, at around $350 for a month’s supply. Dexcom says 98 percent of all U.S. private insurers cover the device, and patients covered by commercial insurance pay an average of $50-$80 per month for sensors through pharmacies or durable medical equipment suppliers. It is covered by Medicare. Libre’s 14-day sensor is also longer-lasting. Dexcom’s sensors work for 10 days, and Medtronic’s for up to 7. Abbott was also the first company to introduce a product that can be used without routine finger stick tests to validate the sensor’s readings – a feature Dexcom later matched and Medtronic has not. Dr. Roy Beck, an endocrinologist at the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Florida, said that Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre is “an excellent sensor” but not as accurate at detecting very low blood sugar as the devices from Dexcom, Medtronic or an implantable CGM made by Senseonics (SENS.A). That makes it less desirable for patients for whom this is a major issue, he said. Beck’s center has received research funding from Abbott and Dexcom. Medtronic and Dexcom executives say the current Libre does not compare with their devices when it comes to features such as alerting users to dangerous blood sugar changes and providing comprehensive trend data. “It’s the cheapest, but it’s not exactly in the same category,” said Mike Hill, vice president and general manager of Medtronic’s sensor business. Abbott countered that its sensor has best-in-class accuracy, and noted that the next-generation Libre 2 does have optional alarms. Still, Medtronic is considering making a cheaper sensor for patients who don’t need all the features of its current continuous monitor, Hill said. And next year, Dexcom plans to launch a cheaper, smaller, 14-day sensor developed in partnership with Verily, Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) life sciences division. Dexcom Chief Executive Kevin Sayer acknowledged that Abbott’s pricing strategy will affect the global market over time, and that Dexcom expects its own prices to come down. “We’ve planned for this,” he said. Claim: You see a whole bunch of Korean cars here in the United States, and you don't see any American cars in Korea.

Answer: 2


Question: Paragraph: "Rhode Island has issued a controversial vaccination requirement designed to fight HPV, or human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cancer. The requirement, ordered by the Rhode Island Department of Health, took effect Aug. 1. It has drawn fire from a group of critics that included the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, which calls itself a ""free enterprise think tank."" The new policy calls for the vaccination of  all  seventh grade boys and girls before the start of school. The requirement does not apply to students whose doctors cite a medical problem; or to students whose parents object for religious reasons. And the health department defines religious reasons very liberally. Before a series of public information meetings on the vaccination requirement, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity posted this statement on its website: ""Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine … and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people."" We telephoned Mike Stenhouse, the center’s founder and chief executive officer, and asked him for his sources. We didn’t get anything from him right away. So we did our own research and found that Virginia is the only other state to require students to receive immunization for HPV. Virginia’s vaccination requirement, which is only for sixth-grade girls, took effect in 2008 following an act of the legislature. Rhode Island’s policy is the product of a regulatory process that began in 2013 under the leadership of Michael Fine, then the state’s director of the Department of Health. In both states, HPV vaccination policies use the word ""required"" and both have opt-out provisions. In Virginia,  parents have ""sole discretion"" on whether their children receive the vaccination. Stenhouse labels the policies in Virginia and Rhode Island as mandates. But Jason L. Schwartz, an assistant professor at the Yale University School of Public Health, says you can’t call policies with such liberal exemptions mandates. The breadth of Rhode Island’s opt-out provisions may not have been clear to the  public — or to Stenhouse — before a public meeting Aug. 5. That’s when Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott, the new director of the Department of Health, told parents that their philosophical objections would qualify for the religious exemption spelled out in the regulations. But what about the center’s claim that Rhode Island imposed the requirement by ""regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people""? And, as the center says later in its policy statement, was the health department’s decision an example of ""regulatory despotism"" that ""bypasses the traditional democratic process""? While it’s true that the General Assembly did not pass a law for the HPV vaccination, existing Rhode Island law gives the health director the power to adopt regulations to protect public health. And, of course, the health director is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the governor. Further, control of health-care policy by the executive branch is common in the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for example, makes decisions affecting the health welfare of the country without first getting an act of Congress. ""To say it’s anti-democratic would be a misunderstanding of how we structure our government in the United States,"" says Schwartz, the Yale professor, who co-authored a recent article about state vaccination requirements for the Journal of the American Medical Association. Also it’s not as if the state adopted the regulation in a back room somewhere — even though Stenhouse’s organization on July 30 described the news of the requirement as a ""stunning revelation."" On Dec. 2, 2013, Fine, the former health director, filed a notice of public hearing for Jan. 16, 2014, and also solicited written statements on the issue. In response to criticism, the department delayed the beginning of the program from Aug. 1, 2014, to Aug. 1, 2015, according to a form for the regulation that was filed with the Office of Secretary of State Nellie M. Gorbea. The Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union registered its ardent opposition to the proposed regulation at the hearing and in written comments. On Jan. 27, 2014, the ACLU called on the health department to reconsider the proposal. The ACLU also criticized the requirement on Facebook. That’s seems like debate to us. We tried to get Stenhouse to explain what the center meant by the phrase ""regulatory fiat."" He declined. Instead, he sent us a written statement in which he said the center ""stands by its statement"" and he challenged PolitiFact’s fairness and objectivity. Our ruling The center says ""Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine … and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people."" The center, in its statement, got two things right and two things wrong. It was right about Rhode Island being the second state and it was right that the requirement was not adopted by ""the elected representatives of the people."" It was wrong when it said the vaccination requirement was imposed ""by fiat"" and ""without public debate."" In 2014, the ACLU sharply criticized the vaccine requirement at the public hearing and debated the proposal in social media and on its website. As for acting by fiat, the regulation was put in place through a process established by law. And comments at a public hearing influenced that process, leading to a decision by the director of health to delay execution of the policy for one year. More recently, the new health director told the public that philosophical objections were enough to qualify for the religious exemption. In other words, parents can pretty much say whatever they want to get exemptions for their children. For those reasons, (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at [email protected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)" Claim: Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine … and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people.

Answer:
1