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: Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa only pay a £400 surcharge to use the NHS. This is the current level the international health surcharge is set at each year, but the taxes that people who come to work in the UK pay also goes towards things like the NHS. Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa incur average NHS costs of £625 per year. It’s unclear how the Conservatives have calculated this new figure and we’ve asked them for more information. Claim 1 of 3 Claim: Under the current system, people on a work, study or family visa only pay a £400 surcharge to use the NHS.
Example Output: This is the current level the international health surcharge is set at each year, but the taxes that people who come to work in the UK pay also goes towards things like the NHS.

Example Input: Paragraph: "At a rally in Houston, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg apologized for supporting the stop-and-frisk policy he endorsed while serving as mayor of New York City from 2002 to 2013. Bloomberg told the mostly black audience at the rally that he should have ""acted sooner and faster"" to stop the policy and said if he were elected, he’d use ""the power of the presidency to right the wrongs of institutional racism."" He used the rally as an opportunity to unveil a new initiative that he says will address issues specific to the black community in the United States: ""Mike for Black America."" One issue he highlighted in his address was access to health care. ""We will build a future in which we better protect the health of black mothers and their babies,"" Bloomberg said at the rally. ""You should know that black babies die at rates twice as high as white babies because of a lack of access to affordable health care and here, in the wealthiest country in the world, we cannot accept that and we will change that."" Bloomberg’s figure is accurate, but is he right in his assessment of the cause of this disparity? His team did not return a request for more information about his claim. Mortality rate higher for black infants The latest statistics on infant mortality from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that there were 22,341 infant deaths reported in the United States in 2017, putting the mortality rate at 5.79 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Statistics on infant mortality are compiled based on birth and infant death certificates in cases where infants less than a year died during the calendar year. Generally, the infant mortality rate has trended downward since 1995 and has declined 16% since 2005, when the rate was 6.86 deaths per 1,000 live births. The CDC also analyzes the infant mortality rate by race. In 2017, infants born to black women had the highest mortality rate of 10.97 deaths per 1,000 live births. The mortality rate for infants born to non-Hispanic white mothers was 4.67 deaths per 1,000 live births, meaning infants born to black mothers have an infant mortality rate 2.35 times higher than infants born to white mothers, according to the CDC. Bloomberg’s claim wasn’t limited to Texas, but this trend is also visible at the state level. A 2018 report from the CDC looked at infant mortality data from 2013 to 2015 by state and race and found that, in Texas, the mortality rate for infants born to non-Hispanic white women was 5 deaths per 1,000 live births and was 10.52 for infants born to black women. Exploring causes of disparity It’s true that infants born to black mothers have died at rates twice as high as white babies in recent years, but is it true that it is due to a lack of access to affordable health care? It isn’t that simple. The five leading causes of all infant deaths in 2017 identified by the CDC were all health related: In a 2019 report, the CDC noted that infants born to black women had the highest mortality rates for disorders related to short gestation (premature birth) and low birthweight and maternal complications. Numerous academic studies and media investigations have highlighted correlations between access to health care and the disparity in infant and maternal mortality rates between black and white mothers. But access to health care is widely considered to be one of many contributing factors. One 2017 study published in the American Journal of Public Health identified other factors that contribute to the high black infant mortality rate: socioeconomic status, maternal behavior, ""exposure to protective and risk factors over the course of a woman’s life,"" and certain historical factors like segregation, limited educational opportunities, structural racism, and intergenerational poverty. This is not to say that a lack of access to health care is not a significant cause of this disparity. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2019 explored how state Medicaid expansion associated with changes in low birthweight and preterm birth across different races — which are more likely to affect black mothers and infants than white mothers and infants. The study did not explore the link between Medicaid expansion and reducing infant mortality. Researchers found that overall, Medicaid expansion was not associated with differences in rates of low birth weight or preterm births. However, they identified ""significant improvements in relative disparities for black infants compared with white infants in states that expanded Medicaid vs. those that did not."" In other words, states that expanded Medicaid saw rates of low birthweight and preterm births decline among black mothers and infants. In general, black mothers were less likely than white mothers to access prenatal care, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s Office of Minority Health. In 2017, black mothers were 2.3 times more likely to receive no prenatal care or late prenatal care than non-Hispanic white mothers. The same year, 66.6% of black mothers received prenatal care during the first trimester, compared to 82.4% of white mothers who accessed early care. Our ruling Bloomberg said: ""Black babies die at rates twice as high as white babies because of a lack of access to affordable health care."" Bloomberg’s figures about the black infant mortality rate vs. the white infant mortality rate are accurate. Studies show that access to healthcare is a contributing factor to this disparity, but it is far from being the only issue at play." Claim: Michael Bloomberg Says “black babies die at rates twice as high as white babies because of a lack of access to affordable health care.”
Example Output: Bloomberg's figure about infant mortality rates is accurate, but his claim oversimplifies the cause of this disparity.

Example Input: Paragraph: The EPA held a hearing Friday on whether to lower the ozone status of Denver and eight other northern Colorado counties from “moderate” to “serious.” That would force the state to work harder to reduce harmful pollution but also bring tougher and costly regulations for businesses. The agency expects to decide by the end of the year. The EPA acted after Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said in March that Colorado would no longer ask for an exemption from EPA standards by claiming some of the pollution was drifting into the state from elsewhere. It’s time to stop “sugar-coating” Colorado’s air problems, he said last month. “Moving to ‘serious’ status finally helps us stop sweeping our air quality crisis under the rug and gives us additional tools to move urgently to make our air cleaner,” he said. But business groups say the state’s own data shows Colorado would meet EPA standards if not for pollution from other states and even other continents. Lowering the air rating would hurt the economy by increasing the cost of doing business, they say. “We’re talking about tens of millions of dollars in direct and indirect costs,” Paul Seby, an attorney representing Defend Colorado, said in an interview before the hearing. Defend Colorado advocates for business and industry on state and federal regulation. Denver and the northern Colorado urban corridor have struggled to meet EPA ozone standards for 15 years. Ground-level ozone can aggravate asthma and contribute to early deaths from respiratory disease. It’s the main component of smog, and it’s created from pollution emitted by vehicles, industries, solvents and other sources. Clean-air advocates welcomed Polis’ decision to pull the state’s request for an exemption. “It’s a big deal,” said Christine Berg, Colorado field consultant for Moms Clean Air Force. “We know ozone pollution is particularly harmful for children.” At Friday’s hearing, several people told the EPA they blame ozone for their health problems. “I’m someone who never used to have breathing problems,” said Marie Venner, who lives in the Denver suburb of Lakewood. Now, it sometimes hurts to take a breath, she said. Seby said Polis’ decision was based on politics, not facts. Polis’ predecessor, Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper — who ended his presidential bid last month and is now running for the U.S. Senate — had asked for the exemption based on data showing that pollution elsewhere and forest fire smoke from other states had pushed Colorado over the limit, Seby said. “Gov. Polis came into office and the exact opposite came about,” Seby said. “The data didn’t change, the science didn’t change — except for the politics.” Seby said hundreds of businesses and institutions could be affected if Colorado’s air rating is downgraded: oil and gas drilling, refineries, large breweries, print shops, wastewater treatment plants and hospitals. Anna Unruh, an air quality consultant for Trinity Consultants, which helps businesses get environmental permits and comply with regulations, agreed that a lower rating would complicate life for businesses and industry. New businesses and expansion projects might have to go through a longer, more rigorous process to get permits, she said. Existing operations might have to get an additional permit. More businesses would have to devote employee time to monitoring and reporting on their pollution. “Permitting definitely will get more difficult,” she said in an interview. Failing to act on dirty air also has economic costs, especially to Colorado’s vital tourism economy said Robert Ukeiley, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. Nitrogen and other pollutants are affecting the environment and the views in Rocky Mountain National Park, the third-most-visited park in the nation, about 60 miles (95 kilometers) northwest of downtown Denver. “People don’t want to go to a national park and look at smog,” Ukeiley told the EPA at Friday’s hearing. In addition to Denver, counties affected by the change are Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, Jefferson, Larimer and Weld. ___ Follow Dan Elliott at http://twitter.com/DanElliottAP . Claim: In a twist, Colorado asks EPA to lower state’s air rating.
Example Output:
Colorado took the unusual step of inviting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to downgrade the air quality rating of the state’s biggest population center, and not everyone thinks that was a good idea.