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.

[EX Q]: "We don’t know yet if the Ebola scare will help either party or be an afterthought in the midterm elections, but liberal blogger Doug Muder argued that confronting Ebola shows that it makes sense to vote Democratic. For Muder, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul is the poster child for a distinct partisan contrast. ""Ebola points out why we need a fully funded government,"" Muder wrote. ""When there’s no immediate threat of disease, government agencies like the CDC look like bureaucratic waste. When Rand Paul put out a ‘Tea Party budget’ in 2011, it included a big cut in the CDC, and virtually no explanation as to how this would affect its mission."" In this fact-check, we look at whether Paul proposed a ""big cut"" in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Muder had blogged about Paul’s budget in 2011. Back then, Muder asked how the CDC would be able to fulfill its mission if, as Paul wanted, its budget was cut by $1.165 billion. We went back to Paul’s original budget documents. One posted January 2011 called for the $1.165 billion reduction that Muder mentioned. Paul then assembled a more complete budget plan in May 2011. It would cut the CDC budget by 20 percent from its Fiscal Year 2008 levels. Depending on whether you include special funds to evaluate federal health programs, Congress appropriated between $6.049 billion and $6.375 billion for the CDC in FY 2008. So Rand’s 20 percent reduction amounts to either $1.209 billion or $1.275 billion in cuts. That’s slightly more than Muder described. Paul wrote in his plan, ""The center is often mentioned in media reports highlighting their lavish accommodations. For example, in 2005, the CDC built a conference center for $106 million, complete with large-screen plasma TVs. They also spent tens of millions of dollars on state-of-the-art anti-gravity seating for employees, as well as luxury furniture. Taxpayers can no longer afford the luxury working atmosphere of the CDC."" That budget plan remains posted on the website randpaul2016.com, Paul's Senate re-election website. Brian Darling, a Paul spokesman, agreed that the senator has proposed these cuts in the past, but said that funding and the ability to fight Ebola don’t inevitably go hand-in-hand. ""If you look closely at the CDC budget, there are funds that have been wasted on projects that have nothing to do with disease prevention,"" Darling said. Darling then noted that Congress has been at least as supportive of the CDC as the Obama administration. Darling said that in an omnibus spending bill, Congress appropriated $6.9 billion for the CDC, about $240 million more than the administration requested. Darling highlighted another $88 million for Ebola in a continuing resolution bill approved in September. However, neither action undercuts Muder’s point, and Paul voted against both measures. It’s important to remember that those bills doled out money across many government agencies, not specifically for the CDC alone. Sometimes reasonable people can quibble over whether a cut is ""big"" or not. In this case, Paul himself called his cuts ""serious"" in a 2011 op-ed he penned for the Wall Street Journal. ""My proposal, not surprisingly, has been greeted skeptically in Washington, where serious spending cuts are a rarity,"" Paul wrote. ""But it is a modest proposal when measured against the size of our mounting debt."" Our ruling Muder said that in 2011 Sen. Paul proposed cutting the CDC budget by $1.165 billion. Budget documents confirm that. In fact, Paul’s most detailed budget that year would have trimmed CDC spending by slightly more, about $1.2 billion. While the Senate approved two broad spending measures to fund the CDC in 2014, Paul voted against both."
[EX A]: "Doug Muder Says Sen. Rand Paul’s 2011 budget ""included a big cut in the CDC."

[EX Q]: This is a tricky one. The story does not explicitly address cost, except to call text messaging “a scalable and affordable approach.” For many (or most) patients, the cost of receiving four text messages a week would likely be negligible — covered by an individual’s phone plan or by nominal text rates. However, not everyone owns a mobile phone, a fact that makes access (and cost) a more significant issue. However, the story does deliver on this point. The story discusses both the number of U.S. adults who own mobile phones (90 percent) and the fact that text messages are more accessible than other forms of mobile health communication (such as apps, which require patients to own smartphones or other smart devices). So, while we’d prefer a more in-depth discussion here, we’ll award a Satisfactory rating for the story’s nod in this direction. The story addresses the range of benefits reported in the study, such as reduced cholesterol and blood pressure, but doesn’t quantify that information or offer readers any context. For example, while the story says “patients who had received the text messages had reduced their cholesterol,” the JAMA paper reports that patients who received the text messages had a “mean difference [of] −5 mg/dL” in “LDL-C.” In other words, the information in the paper, while quantified, probably isn’t very useful to many readers outside the health industry. Is “a mean difference of −5 mg/dL in LDL-C” good? Bad? Irrelevant? This is where reporters have an opportunity to shine. If a news story can take those numbers and translate them into language that is accessible to non-experts, it provides a very real service. It would have been great to see that here. As long as people aren’t driving and checking their cell phones, there don’t appear to be any harms associated with receiving well-meaning text messages four times a week, so we’ll mark this one “not applicable.” This is a strong suit. The story not only offers a concise, but good, summary of the study — but it also goes out of its way to address the study’s limitations. For example, the study notes that the study “can’t tell us whether text messaging could eventually lead to fewer subsequent heart attacks among the patients receiving those messages or whether the positive health outcomes would continue past the six-month study window.” Good points, and we’re glad the story includes them. No disease mongering here. The story includes input from an outside expert who was not involved with the research. The story clearly meets our bar here, although it would have been stronger if it had reached out to at least one more independent source — preferably one who hadn’t written an editorial that ran in conjunction with the paper in JAMA. Yes, the editorial was independent and provides some insightful commentary. But it also means we already knew where this source stood on the issue. Finding another reputable expert, who hadn’t already weighed in publicly on the work, would have been great. The focus of the story is not so much on how the text message intervention directly reduced heart disease risk, but on the extent to which it resulted in patients taking steps to reduce their own risk — such as by exercising more, smoking less, making dietary changes, or taking prescription drugs on a regular basis. The story does discuss other “mobile health interventions,” such as smartphone apps — but notes that there don’t appear to be many mobile health projects that rely simply on text messages. The story also looks at how the text messages helped patients pursue lifestyle changes — like exercising more and smoking less — that reduced their risk. It was fairly clear from the story that this was a clinical trial, and that this particular service doesn’t seem to be available to offer customized, encouraging text messages for heart disease patients. From the start, the story frames this research in the context of the much larger “mobile health” field. For example, the story notes that “While there are more than 100,000 health-related apps on the market, the evidence to date is lacking as to whether many of those apps are safe or effective.” Since the story includes quotes from an interview, we can be fairly certain it went beyond the related JAMA news release.
[EX A]: Text Reminders Help People Lower Cholesterol, Blood Pressure

[EX Q]: We’re rating this one a cautious “Satisfactory.”  The story offers no information about the cost to a patient of a digital therapist, but it does reflect on the cost of creating and maintaining a similar app. This story does a good job of summarizing the benefits that accrued in the course of several studies. Risks are not broached here. This is an issue for a topic such as this, as one could imagine readers expressing concern about the efficacy of a non-human “therapist.” The story actually acknowledges that concern in its second paragraph (“It [the use of technology] might seem surprising, since therapy, more than many other kinds of medicine, is so focused on the relationship between patient and therapist.” But it never digs into the possible debits of wrestling with moderate depression online. We also think the story should have discussed the risk patients being victimized in an open source or relatively open chat room or other online group setting. One important element of psychiatry is privacy and patient confidentiality. Three studies are summarized in this text and, although those summaries are brief, the story allows readers to link to the texts themselves for more details. At least one of those studies, a meta-analysis, gathered the small number of experiments (13) that made explicit comparisons between internet-delivered and face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy. The text makes it clear that internet-based therapies may be more valuable for individuals with mild to moderate depression than for persons with severe depression, who would be more likely to seek face-to-face therapy regimens. But, in a word of caution, does that encourage people to overdiagnose themselves? That’s something to consider. Another cautious “Satisfactory.” One source is clearly identified as someone independent of one of the studies cited. Two others experts are not so identified but are not listed as coauthors on any of the studies. Funding for those studies is not mentioned. It’s worth noting here that two of the sources seem to be heads of institutes that are involved in the development of technological/Internet-based treatment approaches; both could benefit financially from being able to treat many more patients online. The piece discusses several interventions, and offers a graphic representation of recovery rates for individuals in Great Britain across five therapeutic modalities. But, there is no mention of psychiatric medications. Since those are frequently helpful in short-term situations and at least for moderate depression, they should have been included in the comparisons. The story identifies several therapeutic apps and, in a video, shows one individual using a “mobile therapy platform” to text and videochat with a therapist. Several comments in the story about the continuing evolution of these applications suggest that these strategies remain works in progress. A bit of historical information in the story makes it clear that online therapeutic agents have been around—in various stages of development—for more than a decade. This story integrates studies and sources, making reliance on news releases unlikely.
[EX A]:
To Treat Depression, Try a Digital Therapist