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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Patients used to pay $10,000 a year for cancer drugs, but now they’re paying $10,000 a month, according to HBO talk show host Bill Maher. That’s a message circulating on Facebook recently, promoted by the ""Bill Maher Fanpage."" A reader asked us to check it out. The quote comes from the Oct. 2 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher discussed Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company that jacked up the cost of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 essentially overnight. ""Not that (Turing CEO Martin) Shkreli is unusual for the pharmaceutical industry,"" Maher said on his show. ""Fifteen years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month because this cartel owns the U.S. government every bit as much as Mexican drug lords own theirs."" It’s well known that the cost of health care is on the rise, but has the annual cost of cancer drugs really increased so dramatically in just a decade and a half? Maher’s team sent us links to some news articles about the rising cost of cancer drugs, and we tracked down information that speaks to his claim. The best information we could nail down is the cost of anticancer drugs at launch, the initial price when the Federal Drug Administration approves a drug. These are the sticker prices set by the pharmaceutical companies, not the prices patients actually pay out of pocket, which are reduced by insurance payments, patient assistance programs and other discounts. Costs increases, though, are often passed on to consumers. Maher has a point that cancer drug costs are on the rise. We charted the launch costs of cancer drugs the FDA approved since 1999, using a list compiled by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The second half of Maher’s statement -- that cancer drugs now cost about $10,000 a month -- is also on solid ground. Of drugs approved in 2015, the monthly average cost is $11,319. And experts in the field often cite that $10,000 figure themselves. Because many cancer drugs are not administered to patients for a full year, it’s difficult to determine an average annual cost, so the first half of Maher’s statement -- that they cost about $10,000 a year 15 years ago -- is hard to nail down. To his point, though, the monthly cost of a new drug was dramatically lower in 2000 than what it is now at about $4,634. One of the news articles that Maher’s team sent us is an academic article in the Journal of Oncology Practice that supports his statement. The report reads, ""The average cancer drug price for approximately one year of therapy or a total treatment duration was less than $10,000 before 2000."" Maher’s statement is ""in the ballpark,"" if not an understatement, said Rena Conti, a health economist at the University of Chicago who researches cancer drug prices. In a 2015 paper Conti authored with three other leading health economists, she examined the launch cost of anticancer drugs controlled for inflation and the benefit to the patient (how much it prolongs life expectancy). For example, in 1995, anticancer drugs cost $54,100 for an additional year of life, the study found. In 2005, drugs cost $139,100 for the same benefit, and the price grew to $207,000 in 2013. In the United States, pharmaceutical companies set their own drug prices. What’s pushing them to increase the costs? It’s not necessarily that cancer drugs are getting better and are thus worth more. Conti’s research concluded that just about one-fifth of the cancer drug cost increase can be attributed to a better product. There are two primary forces behind annual cancer drug cost increases, Conti said: First, pharmaceutical companies estimate a ""zone of indifference"" -- based on last year’s prices, how much more would buyers be willing to pay? Second, rebates and discounts for drugs have also increased over time, and this creates an incentive for drug companies to increase their costs alongside the discounts. Pharmaceutical companies defend drug price increases by emphasizing that the revenue funds innovative research and that drugs lower overall health care costs by treating illnesses. Because there’s no formal price regulation and competition in the industry is rare, ""It really is a system where there’s no downward pressure on drug prices,"" said Peter Bach, director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Center for Health Policy and Outcomes in an interview with Fortune. Our ruling Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn’t easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren’t used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify, though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher’s numbers are a little squishy, but they’re in the ballpark." Claim: 15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month.

Ex Output:
"Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn’t easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren’t used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify, though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher’s numbers are a little squishy, but they’re in the ballpark."


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Fitness experts say users of the fitness machine, which is a favorite among Army Rangers, Navy Seals, and “The Biggest Loser” television series, reap total body, calorie-busting rewards. “It’s a great and tough cardio piece,” said Neal Pire, an exercise physiologist with the American College of Sports Medicine. “Picture a step mill that combines the lower and upper body, and you have Jacobs Ladder. Except instead of steps, you have rungs.”  Because the user climbs with arms as well as legs more muscles are working and more calories are burned. “As a rule the more muscle mass you utilize during any activity, the greater the oxygen consumed, which is directly correlated to the calories you consumed,” said Pire, president of Inspire Training Systems, in New Jersey. “Unlike stair climbers, you can’t hold on to the sides.”  Jacobs Ladder was invented by Steve Nichols, a fitness champion who injured his knees and back, according to Bob Palka, president of Jacobs Ladder, LLC. “He wanted to come up with a good workout that didn’t impact back and knees.” said Palka, who bought the patent and assets from Nichols in 1994. “Effectively it’s just climbing a ladder,” Palka said. People using the machine are placed at a 40-degree angle to put the spine in a more neutral position, relieve the back of stress and engage core muscles. Palka said on Jacobs Ladder the person’s body weight is lifted over a 12-inch (30.5-centemeter) step for fuller range of motion than the eight-inches of a step mill. “You control the speed,” he said.” The faster you go the faster the runners (on the ladder) come.”  Palka said about 50 to 60 percent of his Jacobs Ladders go to health clubs; some 10 to 15 percent go to the military and physical therapy facilities, respectively. Jacobs Ladder landed a recurring role on the TV show “The Biggest Loser” after trainer Jillian Michaels fell in love with it. “It tends to get your heart rate up,” said Palka, adding that other users, such as the FBI and the Army Rangers, are drawn to the intensity of the workout. John Trail, general manager of a Fitness First health club in Arlington, Virginia, uses Jacobs Ladder in functional circuit and interval training. “You can go for time or you can go for feet,” said Trail. “It’s not a fast-moving piece, but the fact that you’re using every muscle group means you can do 100 feet, rest, jump off, do 10 kettlebell swings, 10 short interval sprints, and burn a lot more calories than you would on an elliptical.”  Trail said a rock climbing buddy likes to climb Jacobs Ladder wearing a back pack for an endurance workout. A self-described competitive person, Trail has even raced with it. “We have two machines side-by-side, so we’ll go for 1,000 feet as fast as possible,” he said. “In under 10 minutes you can get a really good workout.”  He also uses it on clients with joint issues to get their heart rates up quickly. But despite its virtues, Pire said it’s unlikely Jacobs Ladder will supplant the treadmill anytime soon. “The tougher the machine, the more seldom you see it,” he said. “I haven’t seen many seniors hop on. The older population is concerned about balance and falling. And there’s some skill involved in climbing a ladder. But fans are ardent. “Those who use it are almost religious,” he said. Claim: Jacobs Ladder climbers reap tough fitness rewards.

Ex Output:
Jacobs Ladder, a moving, angled, climbing machine, may be named after the Biblical stairway to heaven, but it packs such a challenging workout people have dubbed it the stairway to hell.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Measures to curb the movement of people, imposed to contain the spread of the virus, have hit car sales hard, leading Germany’s Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) on Thursday to abandon its full year outlook and issue a profit warning. As Germany prepares to ease lockdown measures which will allow car dealerships to reopen, lobby group VDA said demand needed to a boost. “There is currently no reason for optimism. It is likely that economic support measures will be necessary in order to revive overall economic demand and, in particular, the demand for vehicles,” Hildegard Mueller, president of German auto industry association VDA said in a statement on Thursday. How such incentives should be structured and funded depends on how well demand rebounds after Germany loosens lockdown measures, Mueller said. “We will only be able to estimate what is actually necessary once the car dealerships have opened. Then we will see how customers will behave.”  Politicians and the auto industry need to act in a timely fashion, she cautioned. “It will be too late to talk about possible demand impulses in autumn.”  Mueller’s remarks, made on Wednesday and published by the VDA on Thursday, follow calls for state aid made by Bavarian premier Markus Soeder on April 8. At the time, he called for a cash-for-clunkers scrappage scheme to boost low emission cars, an idea which was immediately endorsed by BMW’s Chief Executive Oliver Zipse. “We need to have another very specific discussion about how we can strengthen the automotive sector. And I think it is necessary to develop a model similar to the scrappage scheme in order to give a massive boost to domestic demand,” Soeder said, adding that measures were needed to boost demand for low emission vehicles in particular. “Let’s be quite honest, all the new engines have not yet been as successful on the market as we thought. Now is the chance to start a project in which we can promote cars in Germany with an innovation premium.”  Stephan Weil, the premier of Lower Saxony, the German state which owns a 20% stake in Volkswagen, this week told Hannoverschen Allgemeine Zeitung that the country needed an “eco scrappage scheme” to boost demand for electric and hybrid cars. Tobias Austrup, a transport specialist at environmental lobby group Greenpeace, also welcomed the idea. “It is good that Weil and Soeder link any state aid for the car industry to ecological progress this time. If all taxpayers make this money available, then everyone must benefit from it - for example through better air, less climate damage and secure jobs.” Claim: German auto industry calls for incentives to boost green car demand.

Ex Output:

Germany’s auto industry association VDA on Thursday joined a chorus of demands from auto industry executives and politicians calling for more incentives to revive demand for low emission vehicles in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.