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.

Example Input: Paragraph: The bulk of the money will come from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and its affiliates for paying to delay a generic narcolepsy drug, Provigil, from entering the market for nearly six years. Teva is paying $69 million, which Becerra says is the largest pay-for-delay settlement received by any state. Such agreements let the developer of brand name drugs keep their monopolies over the drugs after their patents expire, thereby letting them continue to charge consumers higher prices. The drug developer pays the generic manufacturer to keep the cheaper version of the drug from entering the marketplace for an agreed period of time. Teva said the money will come from a pre-existing fund that was created in 2015 as part of the company’s settlement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over similar claims, and it will not make any additional payments. Becerra said such agreements can force consumers and the health care market to pay as much as 90% more than if there were generic alternatives. More than $25 million of the settlement will go to a consumer fund for California residents who purchased Provigil, Nuvigil or Modafinil between 2006 and 2012. “No one in America should be forced to skip or ration doses of medicine that they need ... and certainly not because a drug company is colluding to keep the price of your drug artificially high even when cheaper options could be available. But that’s what’s happening,” Becerra said. The second, $760,000 settlement is with Teva, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Teikoku Pharma USA over keeping a genetic alternative to the pain patch Lidoderm from entering the market for nearly two years. Teva said it is paying $200,000 to cover the state’s legal costs after settling similar federal claims earlier this year. Neither Endo nor Teikoku responded to requests for comment. Both settlements bar the companies from pay-for-delay agreements for several years. Teva is agreeing to not to enter any such agreements for 10 years, while Endo Pharmaceuticals has an eight-year agreement and Teikoku a 20-year injunction. Teva said the restriction is identical to its federal consent decree. Becerra also backed pending legislation, AB824 by Democratic Assemblyman Jim Wood of Santa Rosa, that would ban such agreements. The measure would require pharmaceutical companies to prove that their agreements are not anticompetitive. It passed the Assembly 56-0 in May and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. Pharmaceutical companies oppose the bill, arguing the Federal Trade Commission already does this monitoring. ___ This story has been corrected to say that while there are four settlement agreements, they involve only three companies. Claim: 3 companies pay California $70 million for delaying drugs.
Example Output: Three pharmaceutical companies collectively are agreeing to pay California nearly $70 million to settle allegations that they delayed drugs to keep prices high, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Monday.

Example Input: Paragraph: The research was released Monday as the state started its first statewide campaign to prevent the disease. The most recent case came out of Hilo, where a resident contracted the disease in late November. Department of Health officials suspect the Big Island patient accidentally ingested an infected slug while drinking from a garden house. People contract the disease by ingesting food contaminated with snails or slugs that carry parasitic larvae from rat droppings. The state’s $300,000 campaign will include a series of television and radio announcements urging people to wash fruits and vegetables before eating them to avoid the potentially debilitating disease, which affects the brain and spinal cord. The Legislature earlier this year granted the Health Department $1 million over the next two years to control the spread of rat lungworm. There were 18 laboratory-confirmed cases in Hawaii this year. The Big Island has seen the most cases at 11, followed by Maui at six. Sue Jarvi, a professor at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, said the recent study shed light on how common the disease is in rats. Jarvi said rats near Hilo Harbor and Hilo International Airport are especially worrisome because some end up getting transported to the mainland and other countries, potentially exporting rat lungworm. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, UH-Hilo and researchers in Thailand are all reviewing parasites that were collected, Jarvi said. “The risk of rat lungworm disease is present on all islands and there are basic steps we can take each day to reduce this risk and help prevent infection,” said Keith Kawaoka, the department’s deputy director of environmental health. “Knowledge is the best defense we can provide people with to collectively protect our communities from rat lungworm disease in Hawaii.” Claim: Hawaii launches campaign to prevent spread of rat lungworm.
Example Output: Almost 94 percent of rats in the Hilo region are infected with the parasite that causes rat lungworm disease, a recent study on the meningitis-like disease showed.

Example Input: Paragraph: The story takes the rare step of talking about costs from three different angles. The cost to the physician. The cost to the patient. And the cost to insursers. “Doctors will pay a one-time fee of $7,500 to lease and receive training on the device. Patients will pay $150 out of pocket for a MelaFind scan, which analysts say may limit use to more affluent patients who are willing to pay extra for the latest medical care. Mela Sciences does not plan to ask insurers to cover the device until several years from now, after it is more widely used. The story shows that the device is fairly effective at finding cancerous lesions. “In a company-sponsored study published last year involving around 1,300 patients, some with multiple growths, doctors reported that MelaFind correctly suggested biopsies on 125 of 127 melanomas that doctors had removed.” It’s a bit confusing, but the story explains that the device also makes the wrong call too often, giving too many false positives. “However, the device did not raise an alarm about non-melanoma growths only about 10 percent of the time; that was still better than doctors in the study who correctly ruled out melanoma in less than 4 percent of such cases, on average.” Just presenting the false positive and false negative rates would have been more helpful to readers. We would have liked to have seen a little more about the latest study of the device, but there was enough information in the story to let readers know that this is the case where the evidence is still not quite settled. It says, for example, “MelaFind underwent a contentious, years-long review by the Food and Drug Administration, which initially rejected the device and concluded it could ‘potentially cause more harm than good. '” And later it says that “an FDA-required follow-up study would help determine how much of a benefit MelaFind represents for patients.” The story both gives the broader context about melanoma while taking care to pinpoint the appropriate patient population. It says in the second paragraph, “The device is approved only for dermatologists and only for use on growths that don’t have obvious signs of cancer but still have one or two worrisome traits.” It also says, “Nearly all patients diagnosed with early-stage melanoma can be treated and cured, but 85 percent of patients with late-stage melanoma die from it within five years.” The story could have more clearly stated that while many are diagnosed with melanoma only a small number actually will die from it. The late stage cases are a small fraction of the total. The story does not use a truly independent source because everyone appears to have some sort of conflict, but this is also one of the stories strengths. Rarely have we seen conflicts presented with this kind of detail. For example, the story says describes Dr. Leonard Goldberg as “a dermatologist at the Texas Medical Center and vice president of the Skin Cancer Foundation, a disease awareness group that accepts donations from makers of sunscreen.” The story compares the device to clinicians throughout, and shows clearly that dermatologists are still the ones with the best authority in this area. The story says clearly that the devices are not currently available in most areas. “But don’t expect to see a MelaFind machine at your next doctor’s appointment. The company plans a limited rollout next year of just 200 dermatologists on the East coast, all of whom must undergo company training before they can begin using the device.” The story calls the device a “first of its kind,” but it also explains that it is only approved for use in a subset of patients and that much more work needs to be done. The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: New device uses light to screen for melanoma
Example Output:
It puts both the potential benefits and potential harms of this scanner used to detect cancerous skin lesions in the proper context. It explains that, while new to the market, the device is not a medical breakthrough. It provides cost information, for both the physicians and patients. And it carefully makes note of all potential conflicts of interest. Despite the well-known risks of excessive sun exposure, many Americans remain “sun worshipers.” Rates of skin cancer, specifically melanoma, have been on the rise. While most skin cancers represent local disease and do not risk distant spread, melanoma is the exception. It can metastasize and ultimately kill. At biopsy, the depth of penetration is the key feature that is associated with risk of spread. Thus, identifying which lesions are high risk leads to the potential to remove these lesions before they have metastasized. The question is whether this machine does it better than a skilled dermatologist. One can see the potential in this device, but there is no evidence presented that this has saved a life – or done so more efficiently than a dermatologist