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.

Paragraph: Unions and professional groups for such employees say those jobs often are lower priority when budgets are tight, but their absence can have profound effects on student learning and teachers’ work. They contend support staff is vital to properly address everyday student issues such as physical and mental health problems or homelessness. In Chicago, the nation’s third-largest school district, the teachers who have been out on strike since last Thursday are seeking commitments for support staff hiring alongside other demands including higher pay and affordable housing citywide. The demands are part of the union’s “social justice” agenda. Bridget Nelson, a social sciences teacher at a magnet high school in Chicago, said her school is lucky to have a nurse most days but a social worker still is responsible for more than 2,000 students. “Adolescence is a challenging time, and we worry about depression and stress like a lot of educators,” Nelson said. “Some students have support at home, but others don’t. They should have support at school to help give them what they need.” The support-staff issue has come up elsewhere in spring protests by thousands of educators in North Carolina and South Carolina; in Minnesota, where a state survey recently found an increase in students’ mental and emotional health concerns; and in strikes in California, where teachers won promises for hundreds of additional nurses and more counselors in Los Angeles schools and more psychologists and special education instructors in Oakland. Shortages are causing problems in schools across the country, said Melissa Cropper, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers. While discussing labor unions on a visit this month to a government class in an urban Ohio high school, Cropper said she asked the students what they would want prioritized in negotiations. A girl who had attempted suicide answered first: a counselor. Another student wanted a nurse. “We’ve got kids who are dealing with thinking about committing suicide or coming to school hungry or watched a domestic abuse situation over the weekend,” Cropper said. “We can’t possibly begin to think that we’re going to teach them something that’s going to stick with them until we’ve dealt with these other issues.” Most teachers don’t have specific training to tackle those sorts of concerns, so they’re advocating for schools to add more colleagues who do, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said. The American School Counselor Association recommends one counselor for every 250 students but has found the average ratio to be nearly double that. The National School Nurses Association’s most recent estimates, from a study published early last year, indicated less than 40% of schools had a full-time nurse and about a quarter didn’t employ one at all. In those cases, teachers may have to assess and address issues such as gym class injuries, and preventive care can dwindle, said Donna Mazyck, the executive director of the nurses association. At John Tartan Elementary School in North Las Vegas, an assistant trained in basic first aid often handles minor injuries and distributes basic medications because the nurse splits duty at multiple schools, said Marie Neisess, a veteran teacher and reading specialist there. The school of 400-plus students also has a counselor, a social worker and a psychologist, but they struggle to keep up with the needs of the student body, which includes children facing challenges such as severe behavioral problems, foster care or a parent’s incarceration, she said. “We’re all kind of putting Band-Aids on the very big problem that we have here,” Neisess said. In Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot had campaigned with an education plan that included staffing schools with full-time nurses, social workers and librarians, and enabling students to get mental health services. The district has committed to hiring more nurses, social workers and support staff but objected to making that part of the teachers’ contract. The union also has expressed concern about the various roles counselors are expected to fill, including as substitute teachers and lunchroom help, and asked for contract language that spells out that people will only be asked to do the jobs for which they are hired. Pushing for something enforceable in writing makes sense to Matt Mandel, a middle-school English teacher in the Philadelphia School District, who said the local union there has fought to have a nurse and counselor at each school. “In these urban districts like Philadelphia and Chicago, our kids need more,” Mandel said, “and we always find ways to justify giving them less.” ___ Associated Press reporter Kathleen Foody in Chicago contributed to this report. Claim: Chicago teachers’ strike highlights support staff shortages.
Demands by striking Chicago teachers for more nurses, librarians and social workers are highlighting concerns that resonate in high-poverty school districts nationwide, where shortages of support staff leave educators feeling stretched.

Paragraph: There is no discussion of cost in this release. The journal article says several institutions refused to provide their prices. Nevertheless, the high cost of robotic surgery is an important issue. The researchers wrote they were unable to say whether those high costs might be offset [or not] by certain potential benefits (such as shorter hospital stays), but the release should have at least acknowledged the cost issues. The release does report the percentage of patients in the robot-assisted and open surgery groups that were still alive with no signs of disease progression two years after their procedures: 72.3 percent of patients in the robotic surgery group compared with 71.6 percent in the open surgery group… and it notes the difference was not statistically significant. It also reports that the robot-assisted surgery patients checked out of the hospital after six days on average, compared to 7 days for those in the open surgery group. The release reports only half as much blood loss in the robot surgery group, but does not report the amounts, which averaged 300 mL in the robot-assisted group vs. 700 mL in the open surgery group… that’s a difference of less than one pint. The release reports that patients who had robot-assisted surgery spent more time in the operating room than those having open procedures (seven hours vs. six hours). It also reports overall rates of adverse effects (67 percent in the robot group vs. 69 percent in the open group), along with listing the most common problems: urinary tract infections and intestinal obstructions. It would have helped if the release had pointed out that these complication rates were not statistically different. In a way, the release is satisfactory and yet maddeningly unsatisfactory. It tells readers that the study was a randomly controlled trial with 350 patients, but it buries the most important point: that the ability of these researchers to do this sort of rigorous trial comparing robot-assisted surgery with open techniques highlights how few such trials are done. Deep in the release, the researchers are quoted as saying the findings “underscore the need for further high-quality trials to assess surgical innovation before this surgical technique is widely adopted in clinical practice” and further that “It is important to conduct these trials before widespread adoption of technology, as has been the case with robotic prostatectomy (removal of the prostate).” The quality of the evidence should have been the lead. The release does not exaggerate the prevalence of bladder cancer. It does not push treatment on those who are unlikely to benefit. The release could be interpreted as promoting a newer more expensive form of therapy that doesn’t provide any advantages over the standard therapy. Although the release reports that the study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, it fails to note the financial disclosures several researchers made about money they have received from companies relevant to this study. The comparison of robot-assisted to open surgery was the main point of the release. The release makes clear that both techniques are available… including at the institution that issued the release. The release could have informed readers that, according to the published paper, that all of the operators in this study had done at least 10 robot-assisted cystectomies before being allowed to participate in the study. When widespread adoption of the robot-assisted procedure occurs, it would be possible that many surgeons would not have completed that many robotic cystectomies. While the release does tell readers that what is really new here is the use of randomization to compare robot-assisted surgery to open surgery for bladder cancer, it manages to bury that lead so deep under the poorly worded description of the results of this non-inferiority trial that the thrust of the release is unsatisfactory. The release doesn’t employ unjustified, sensational language. Claim: Robotic surgery as effective as open surgery for bladder cancer
This news release about a trial that randomly assigned people with bladder cancer to either robot-assisted or open surgery buried the real news under a weak lead that garbles the findings. The news here is that, contrary to assertions of many proponents of robot-assisted surgery, it is possible to randomize patients in order to get a valuable comparison instead of relying on weaker study designs that can’t answer the fundamental question about how old and new techniques compare. The release is rated as satisfactory on many criteria because key information was included in the body of the release, but the headline proclaiming that robot surgery is “as effective” as open surgery misses the larger point. The headline and lead also put a pro-robot spin on the results, which could also be summarized as robot surgery is “not clearly worse.” Also not explained: robot-assisted surgery is more expensive. The final sentence of the release, a quote from a researcher, should have been the lead: “It is important to conduct these trials before widespread adoption of technology, as has been the case with robotic prostatectomy (removal of the prostate).”  We are bombarded with releases and news stories trumpeting results from studies of robot-assisted surgery that don’t actually compare the new technology to existing practice. These studies often lack any control group or use historical data that may not be truly comparable. The promoters of expensive new devices then claim that they are relying on the best available evidence. This trial shows better evidence can (and should) be gathered. And in this case, good quality evidence indicates little difference in the techniques, despite what all the big hospital billboards about robot surgery proclaim.

Paragraph: The settlement, the largest by any company related to the U.S. opioid epidemic, resolved long-running probes by the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission into the companies’ marketing and sales of Suboxone Film. The deal came after Indivior in April was indicted and accused of deceiving doctors and healthcare benefit programs into believing Suboxone Film, itself a form of opioid, was safer and less susceptible to abuse than similar drugs. The indictment said Indivior also used an internet and telephone program touted as a resource for opioid-addicted patients to connect them to doctors it knew were prescribing Suboxone and other opioids at high rates and in suspect circumstances. The Justice Department said the scheme began before Indivior spun out of Reckitt in 2014 and resulted in thousands of opioid-addicted patients using the drug. Opioids, including prescription painkillers and heroin, played a role in a record 47,600 U.S. overdose deaths in 2017, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said. Reckitt was not indicted like Indivior, but the department last year joined several whistleblower lawsuits alleging the British company improperly marketed the drug. As part of Thursday’s settlement, Reckitt entered into a non-prosecution agreement and agreed to pay nearly $1.35 billion to resolve the Justice Department’s criminal and civil claims. It will also pay $50 million to resolve FTC claims that it engaged in anticompetitive activities aimed at impeding competition from generic versions of Suboxone. Reckitt said in a statement that it “acted lawfully at all times and expressly denies all allegations that it engaged in any wrongful conduct.” But it said its board had decided the settlement was in the company’s best interests. Slough, England-based Indivior has pleaded not guilty to conspiracy and fraud charges. In a statement, it acknowledged Reckitt’s settlement but said it had no new information on the case. Its trial in federal court in Abingdon, Virginia is set for May. (GRAPHIC - Reckitt gains in value after Indivior spin-off: tmsnrt.rs/2NPlAJJ)  Shares in Reckitt, whose products range from Mucinex cold medicine and Lysol cleaners, closed up 2.5%. While the settlement is significantly higher than the $400 million that the consumer goods group had set aside to cover the cost of the investigations, analysts said it could allow the company’s new chief executive to focus on a turnaround plan. In an effort to regain investor confidence after setbacks including a safety scandal in South Korea, a failed product launch and a cyber attack, Reckitt’s outgoing boss Rakesh Kapoor launched a plan to split the group into two business units – one for health and one for hygiene and home products. Investors had feared the U.S. probes could hinder the transformation. Analysts at JP Morgan wrote in a note that settlement “clarifies the legal environment for RB and should allow the new management to focus on the RB 2.0 transformation.”  While welcoming the settlement, AJ Bell investment director Russ Mould said the cost could limit incoming CEO Laxman Narasimhan’s ability to undertake much-needed investment in Reckitt’s brands. “The danger is that Narasimhan will be operating with one hand tied behind his back,” he said. The company said it would increase its provision related to the investigations to $1.5 billion to cover both the cost of the settlement and “any remaining litigation exposures.” It said the deal would be funded through existing borrowing facilities and cash generation. Separately, Indivior also raised its full-year profit and revenue guidance after Suboxone lost market share at a slower pace than expected. Its shares closed 6.73% higher. Claim: Reckitt to pay $1.4 billion to end U.S. opioid addiction treatment probes.

Reckitt Benckiser has agreed to pay up to $1.4 billion to resolve U.S. claims that its former pharmaceuticals business Indivior before it was spun out of the company carried out an illegal scheme to boost sales of an opioid addiction treatment.