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.

Q: "Ohio Sen. Rob Portman has been busy in Washington touting the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act in response to a shocking number of heroin overdoses in Ohio. The bill just passed in the Senate, 94-1. (Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse was the sole ""nay,"" saying he believes that fighting addiction is a local issue.) Ohio ranks high on the list of states reeling from the national epidemic. In Montgomery County, which encompasses Dayton, Ohio, heroin-related deaths increased 225 percent between 2011 and 2015. Back in the 1970s, the heroin on U.S. streets was the ""black tar"" variety, and much of it came from southeast Asia. In 2010, 80 percent of the heroin in the world came from poppy fields in Afghanistan, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. So when Portman said that most of the heroin in America comes from Mexico’s border, we were skeptical. Portman, it turns out, has done his homework. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s National Drug Threat Assessment of 2015 says that Mexico is the primary supplier of heroin to the United States. ""Southeast Asia was once the dominant supplier of heroin in the United States, but Southeast Asian heroin is now rarely detected in U.S. markets,"" the report state. ""Mexico and, to a lesser extent, Colombia dominate the U.S. heroin market, because of their proximity, established transportation and distribution infrastructure, and ability to satisfy U.S. heroin demand."" The report also says that Mexican ""transnational criminal organizations,"" (the DEA’s term for drug-dealing gangs) ""pose the greatest criminal drug threat to the United States; no other group is currently positioned to challenge them."" The National Drug Threat report notes that Colombian gangs were traditionally the suppliers of wholesale cocaine and heroin to Mexican and Dominican groups. But cartels in Mexico are ramping up their roles on the supply side -- opium production in Mexico increased by 50 percent in 2014. Mexican labs also produce fentanyl, a synthetic painkiller that is 80 to 100 times stronger than morphine. Fentanyl is sometimes mixed with heroin or substituted for heroin, and the DEA reports more than 700 overdoses attributed to fentanyl between late 2013 and early 2015. Drugs get past the U.S. borders mostly ""by land, not by sea,"" said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, in the same March 8 hearing with Portman. And a 2015 Washington Post series on the surge of heroin puts the border detection rate at a scant 1.5 percent. Smugglers’ creativity defies gravity: One successful bust came when agents caught two men flying a drone carrying 28 pounds of heroin from Mexico to California. Our ruling Portman said that heroin is coming to the United States primarily from Mexico. He hasn’t been studying drug facts for nothing."

A: We understand that this heroin is primarily coming from Mexico, over the border.
****
Q: "The Clinton Foundation might be committed to doing good around the world, but Hillary Clinton’s critics see it as a ripe target to bring down the presumptive Democratic nominee. Republican Donald Trump recently charged that some countries who gave money to the foundation received favorable treatment in return. For anyone who hasn’t heard about the Clinton Foundation, it’s the signature project to reduce poverty and improve global health created by former President Bill Clinton. It is part matchmaker, helping wealthy donors connect with doers, and part active participant, directly running programs, especially in health care. In an interview with Hillary Clinton, CNN’s Anderson Cooper quoted Trump and asked if her husband would break all ties with the foundation, should she become president. Clinton said she would cross that bridge ""if we come to it,"" and proceeded to give a full-throated defense of the foundation. ""I'm proud of the work that it has done,"" Clinton said in the June 8, 2016, interview. ""Nine million people have lower-cost HIV/AIDS medicine because of the work of the Clinton Foundation and my husband. We have women across the country, from Latin America and Africa -- across the world, I mean -- getting good jobs, and being able to support themselves for the first time."" We’ll focus on the first part of that statement and explore if the Clinton Foundation actually had a hand in making HIV/AIDS drugs more affordable for 9 million people? The foundation’s work on HIV/AIDS treatment dates back to 2002 with the creation of the Clinton Health Access Initiative. That was a time when some countries were paying $1,000 or more to treat each AIDS patient. The basic goal was to bring in bulk-buying to lower costs. The program consolidated both the supply of raw materials to make the drugs and the bidding to supply the finished product. The result was lower production costs and lower drug prices. Today, the initiative tracks the going price for a menu of treatments and posts them to help health departments around the world as they negotiate with drug companies. In 2014, the World Health Organization reported that by the end of 2013, more than 11.7 million people were on antiretroviral therapy in low- and middle-income countries. While the kinds of drugs have changed, the WHO said ""in the past decade the price of individual antiretroviral formulations has decreased considerably."" The treatments used in the early days have fallen from a median cost of about $600 in 2003 to about $100 a decade later. A more advanced drug combination introduced in 2005 saw a similar decline. Importantly, the WHO listed the Clinton Health Access Initiative as one of a handful of organizations collaborating on ensuring a steady supply of drugs. The partners in that effort include the biggest players, including several United Nations agencies, PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and UNITAID, a project created by  Brazil, Chile, France, Norway and the United Kingdom. UNAIDS announced at the end of May that the number of people under treatment is now closer to 17 million. Technically, the Clinton Health Access Initiative has been a separate nonprofit since 2010, but it is still integrated within the Clinton Foundation and the foundation press office still offers comments on its behalf. Clinton Health Access Initiative spokeswoman Maura Daley told us that Clinton used an old figure for the people being served by the initiative. ""The total number of patients benefitting is 11.8 million,"" she told us. Not everyone getting treatment is counted as benefiting from the initiative’s efforts. Beyond working to reduce drug costs, it also coordinates with nongovernmental organizations inside countries to distribute the drugs once they arrive. Clearly, the Clinton Health Access Initiative did not accomplish all of this on its own, but Clinton didn’t say that. Two experts in HIV/AIDS treatment, Jennifer Kates at the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Ellen ‘t Hoen call the initiative an important player. ‘t Hoen was the first executive director of the Medicines Patent Pool, a group that streamlines the production of generic antiretroviral drugs. ""Without the work of the MPP it would have been much harder for organizations like CHAI to access generic antiretrovirals,"" she said. The initiative has been faulted for failing to fully report donations from foreign governments and has filed amended returns for 2012 and 2013. Our ruling Clinton said 9 million people have lower-cost HIV/AIDS medicine thanks to the efforts of the Clinton Foundation and her husband. Bill Clinton started the foundation and its first big project was the Clinton Health Access Initiative. The program focused on using market mechanisms to reduce treatment costs. Costs have fallen dramatically and the initiative remains a key global player in maintaining a steady supply of affordable drugs. If anything, Clinton understated the number of people who have benefited from the program.

A: Nine million people have lower-cost HIV/AIDS medicine because of the work of the Clinton Foundation and my husband.
****
Q: On 24 December 2017, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration was scaling back an Obama-era policy that ramped up the use of fines on skilled nursing facilities for actions that endangered vulnerable patients: The Trump administration is scaling back the use of fines against nursing homes that harm residents or place them in grave risk of injury, part of a broader relaxation of regulations under the president. The shift in the Medicare program’s penalty protocols was requested by the nursing home industry. The American Health Care Association, the industry’s main trade group, has complained that under President Barack Obama, federal inspectors focused excessively on catching wrongdoing rather than helping nursing homes improve. As would be expected, the Times report (which was published on Christmas Eve) resulted in a number of aggregated stories crafted to play up the outrage angle with sensational headlines reporting, essentially, that the president was going to kill Grandma on Christmas. Over-the-top wording as in this headline, “Trump Will Permit Abuse Of Elderly In Nursing Homes,” prompted readers to inquire whether the story was true. Elder abuse is a crime, and that has not changed. However, the Trump administration did begin the process of rolling back an Obama administration policy that uses hefty fines as leverage against facilities that cause serious harm to patients. The Trump administration issued two Notices of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRMs) in May and June of 2017 which will reverse rules requiring the presence of a designated facility grievance officer to handle allegations of wrongdoing, and prohibiting nursing homes from requiring patients to sign pre-dispute arbitration agreements as a condition of admission. These changes do not mean that rampant, unchecked abuse will be allowed to take place, as some headlines have suggested however. In November 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) also issued a moratorium on a requirement that nursing homes develop a baseline care plan for new patients within 48 hours of admission, along with seven other requirements on things like behavioral health care, psychotropic medication and facility assessments. The effects of the rollbacks are not yet known, but Toby Edelman, senior attorney for the Center for Medicare Advocacy, told the Times, “They’ve pretty much emasculated enforcement, which was already weak.” According to federal records reviewed by the Times, four in every ten nursing homes have been cited at least once since 2013 for a serious violations such as neglect, mistreatment and failing to protect residents from accidents and bed sores. CMS put an 18-month moratorium on a requirement that nursing homes develop a basic care plan for new patients within 48 hours. This rule was put in place after the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General found in a study published in 2014 that one in five Medicare patients experienced medical complications within an average 15 days of admission to nursing facilities, most of which were serious, preventable and resulted in millions in additional medical expenses billed to Medicare. However in a memo to state health departments, CMS noted that the moratorium does not mean violation of requirements will result in no enforcement. Requirements that fall under the purview of the moratorium, like the baseline care plan, will simply be handled differently until the end of the moratorium period. In a statement, Center for Medicare Advocacy policy attorney Dara Valanejad told us: The Center for Medicare Advocacy is greatly concerned by the Administration’s actions rolling back the minimum standards of care set out in the Medicare and Medicaid Requirements of Participation. CMS should be protecting the rights of residents, who should be its primary focus, not referring to the nursing home industry as its “customer.” The minimum nursing home standards were implemented because there was an unmet need for urgent resident protections. For example, the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reported in 2014 that one in five residents experienced harm within the first month of admission (the average was 15.5 days) to a skilled nursing facility, 20 percent of these cases resulted in life-sustaining interventions or death, and 59 percent of these adverse events were “clearly or likely preventable.” The Baseline Care Plan, one of the Phase 2 Requirements that CMS placed an 18-month moratorium on, requires nursing homes to develop a basic care plan within 48 hours to address the type of problems that the OIG found. How can nursing home residents and their families feel safe knowing that such vital requirements, meant to protect them from harm, injury, or death, will not be properly enforced? Per the Times report, the American Health Care Association sent a letter to then-President Elect Trump in December 2016 asking for “relief” from regulations and complained to CMS: Rather than spending quality time with their patients, the providers are spending time complying with regulations that get in the way of caring for their patients and doesn’t increase the quality of care they provide.

A:
President Trump rolled back rules protecting residents of nursing homes.
****