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: The news release includes information about costs. We would have liked a little more context. The release states: “The costs associated with home infusion were also consistently lower than services provided in a health care facility, with savings ranging between $1,928 and $2,974 per course of treatment.” We need to know what percentage of savings that is per course of treatment. If the whole course costs $100,000, then saving $1,928 is a pretty small percentage. If the whole course is $10,000, than a savings of $1,928 looks more substantial. We found the news release skimmed over giving crucial numbers and metrics for benefits. Separate from the cost benefit to home infusion versus hospital or clinic infusion, the release should have given us some numbers for safety. Here is what the release stated (emphasis ours): “The research showed that patients receiving intravenous therapy at home had as good or better clinical outcomes as those patients who received the same therapy in a traditional health care setting. In addition, patients overwhelmingly preferred receiving their infusion therapies at home, reporting fewer disruptions in personal schedules and responsibilities. We need numbers to demonstrate how “as good” the clinical outcomes were. We need numbers to represent “overwhelmingly preferred.” By what percentage did what number of patients demonstrate preference? This is where the release could have taken some quantitative data from the study. The word “harms” does not appear in the news release. During intravenous infusions there are complications that may arise. The release does not mention harm, even to dismiss the probability as rare. The study being reported is a systematic literature review that only considered 13 prior studies. The release does not address the limitations of a literature review or give us the total number of patients represented by the 13 studies. Only 5 of the 13 studies used in the analysis addressed outcomes. One had no comparison group (“However, no adjustment for confounders was performed, and higher OPAT success rates were likely due to purposeful selection of younger, healthier patients for OPAT therapy,” according to the published study). In another study, “IPAT patients were selected from a time period during which OPAT was not available for any patients, minimizing selection bias by the matching fact.” In any case, less than half of the studies looked at outcome data and those that did involved different diseases from different time periods, some had control groups and some did not. We don’t think the evidence is strong enough to suggest outcomes were improved. The bias inherent in CVS employees culling the studies is also concerning. A better description of the review’s search and selection process may have helped allay any concerns about studies being cherry-picked. There is no disease mongering. The release is clear that the study was done by the CVS Health Research Institute. Since this is a news release from a profit-making company that operates directly to sell services under study, we hope the readers quickly understand there is an inherent conflict. This is the equivalent of a Coca Cola study about the benefits of drinking their product. The release explains the alternatives of clinic or hospital infusion compared to home infusion. Home infusion services are widely available. Their reimbursement is not widely available. The release says “clinical outcomes and quality of care have not previously been systematically evaluated.” The release doesn’t rely on any unreasonable or unjustified language. However, we do not think the news release proves the words used in the headline that say “Home Infusion Care Improves Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life While Reducing Overall Costs.” Based on a literature review, which does not randomize people into apples-to-apples comparison, you cannot claim to show better outcomes. The release does not offer any quantified benefits to support medical outcomes and doesn’t provide quantified information about quality of life improvement. The fact that patients prefer home infusion to travel to a clinic is not by itself a proof that their lives have been improved. As we wrote in the benefits section above — we are not given numbers to prove by what amount patients prefer home infusion. Claim: CVS Health Research Institute Study Shows that Home Infusion Care Improves Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life While Reducing Overall Costs

Ex Output:
This news release describes the cost savings and safety of home infusion services from 13 previously published studies compared with infusion services at a clinic or hospital. Home infusion appears safe and clinically effective while saving money in the studies reviewed, but the release does not address limits in the review. We aren’t given any numbers to back up the claims that clinical outcomes were equal and that patients preferred the home setting. The release notes that CVS has a home infusion business–Coram–so at least they make this transparent. We applaud CVS for attempting to quantify the cost savings and other potential benefits of the service — and the claim that there are advantages are likely valid — but some context/background from other, independent studies would be helpful. Besides the lack of quantification, the release doesn’t delve into the potential risks from using the home infusion service. Treatments for chronic diseases, which often require drugs administered through infusion, are one of the fastest growing costs in the US health care system. If patients can be served at home, rather than in outpatient clinics or hospitals, it saves both money and time. But outcomes studies, which compare outcomes and safety between locations, are essential to judging whether home infusion is equal to clinic or hospital infusion. This release does not go far enough with numbers to quantify benefits and risks. We also see that CVS has a conflict of interest, because they have a business arm, Coram, that sells home infusion services. It appears this release (and study) are getting attention just as Congress is “discussing how to implement a comprehensive home infusion benefit for Medicare beneficiaries.”


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Of more than 300 men and women who had the surgery, a third stopped playing sports entirely and 68 who were still active said they didn’t play as well as before, researchers reported in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. The anterior cruciate ligament, or ACL, is the ligament inside the knee that helps keep the joint stable. About 150,000 ACL injuries occur each year in the United States. “Less than 50 percent of the study sample had returned to playing sport at their preinjury level or returned to participating in competitive sport when surveyed at 2 to 7 years after ACL reconstruction surgery,” wrote Clare Ardern at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, who led the study. Ardern and her colleagues followed more than 300 men and women for two to seven years. Participants had either played Australian-rules football, basketball, netball or soccer before their surgeries. At 39 months post-surgery, 208 out of the 314 people who had the operation were still playing a sport, the researchers said. Of those 208, 68 said they played at a lower level than before their injury and 140 said they played about the same as before their injury. The remaining 106 participants either were not playing sports or did not complete the entire study. “Although almost all people returned to playing some form of sport, they did not play continuously for many years after their surgery,” Ardern told Reuters Health in an email. She also noted there may be other reasons why people stopped playing sports, such as fear of getting injured again or less confidence in performing. Of the 196 people who played competitive sports before their injury, 91 returned to their competitive sport. “This is a big injury,” said Edward McDevitt, a spokesman for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, who was not part of the study. “Many athletes who choose surgery have a long and difficult road to face. If you’re not willing to go through it, then you might be better off just getting a brace.”   He added that while knee surgery does allow people to return to their sport, they couldn’t perform as well as doctors might wish. People who tear the ACL can either opt for physical therapy and surgery or just physical therapy alone. “Some people find that they are able to function well without surgery, provided they have adequate leg strength to support the injured knee,” Ardern said. “Other alternatives may be to avoid sports involving direction changes, jumping and landing or activities that make the knee feel unstable, or use knee braces and supports.”   McDevitt speculates that after surgery, some athletes may not have the same range of motion, preventing them from playing as before. ""I tell my patients, 'I can't make you like before, I'm not God. But I'll do the best I can to restore you back to the way you were,'"" he added. SOURCE: bit.ly/pWId18" Claim: After knee repair, half can't play sports the same.

Ex Output:
After knee reconstruction surgery, half of people who played sports both competitively and just for fun don’t perform as well as they used to, according to an Australian study.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The death toll from the virus rose to 14 after an elderly woman died in an aged-care facility in New South Wales (NSW) state where several residents and employees have tested positive for the virus, according to NSW health officials. The country’s total number of confirmed coronavirus cases jumped by 469 to 3,635 on Saturday, the federal health ministry said, from less than 100 at the start of March. The case number has leapt about 30% since Thursday, with most infections in NSW and Victoria states. As of midnight on Saturday, all returning citizens from abroad will be put into compulsory quarantine in hotels for two weeks at the government’s expense. Military personnel will help ensure travelers comply with the new rules. “There’s so many parts of the world where this (coronavirus) is running rampant and I think every returned traveler is a significant risk,” Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews told a televised briefing. Two-thirds of the cases in Australia have been traced to contact with people returning from overseas, government health officials said, although community transmission has been growing. NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said harsher enforcement of social distancing could be necessary if community transmission began to rise “at a rate that we are not comfortable with”. Australia’s state and federal governments have sent some mixed messages about social distancing and other containment measures, leading to widespread confusion. While there is no national order to stay home, entertainment and other mass-gathering venues have been shut and authorities have urged people to cancel house parties and other social gatherings. Victorian police closed beaches on Saturday after hundreds of people flocked to the waterside a day earlier in a repeat of scenes the previous weekend at Sydney’s Bondi beach. Police said they had attended a backpacker hostel at Bondi on Friday night to prevent a “free sausage sizzle” that had been advertised at the venue, amid concerns that young people in particular are not taking social distancing seriously. Victoria and South Australia states implemented on-the-spot fines for people and businesses breaking social distancing rules, following similar measures introduced by NSW. While beaches and some parks were closed in various parts of the country, department stores were allowed to remain open under rules requiring shoppers to stay 1.5-metre (5 feet) apart. That has not helped the major retailers much, with Myer Holdings shutting all its stores for four weeks from Sunday amid a slump in consumer spending. Woolworths Holdings, which owns David Jones and Country Road Group in Australia, also said it would close 280 small-format fashion stores for at least four weeks from Sunday, with 5,000 staff to be stood down. In Queensland state, more than one million people were required to visit polling stations to vote in council elections on Saturday. The state government asked them to bring their own pens and practice social distancing. Claim: Australia tightens social distancing rules to fight coronavirus.

Ex Output:

Australia stepped up enforcement of social distancing rules on Saturday to contain community transmission of the novel coronavirus, implementing fines, closing beaches and threatening stricter measures if people defy pleas to stay at home.