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: Mentions cost for one year of Herceptin as $40,000-$50,000. Mentions quantitative benefit of 9 weeks of Herceptin vs. no Herceptin with certain chemotherapy. Also, while no women in the Herceptin group had cardiac failure at 3 years, the follow-up period may not be long-enough to determine the effects of chemotherapy and Herceptin on the heart. Mentions potential harms of Herceptin on the heart, especially when given after certain chemotherapy. The story does not mention that there were side effects with certain chemotherapy drugs and doses needed to be decreased during the course of the trial. One aspect of this trial focused on randomization of women with Her2/neu overexpression to 9 weeks of Herceptin or no Herceptin immediately following breast cancer surgery. The drug was given in conjunction with certain types of chemotherapy, but before radiation and chemotherapy regimens known to damage the heart. The journalist states the Herceptin was given “prior to chemotherapy”, which is not completely accurate. There is an adequate mention of the study design and discussion of disease-free survival at 3 years follow-up. Good job putting the results into context of other trials, and into context of how this may or may not change providers’ practice. The story could have better stated the limitations of analysis for such a small subgroup – 116 in each arm. Appropriately discusses the percentage of women who are eligible for Herceptin due to overexpression of HER2/neu. The story would have been helped by some context for the risk these women face. As Herceptin is used earlier and earlier these women have less to gain because they have less risk to begin with. Relative risk reductions may be very high but the absolute is not as big. Sources in addition to study authors are cited. No mention that this trial was funded in part by pharmaceutical companies. Some study investigators also receive research funding drug companies. Other doctors cited express caution about the early results of Herceptin studies, so there is some balance to the piece. The women in this trial had undergone breast cancer surgery and those with ER+ tumors were taking Tamoxifen. This is not explicitly mentioned, only that treatment took place following surgery. Still OK. Herceptin is only FDA approved to treat advanced breast cancer, but is used in clinical trials in early-stage breast cancer. This is not mentioned in the story. Novel use of Herceptin for short-term treatment prior to anthracycline chemotherapy. No evidence that this story relies on a press release. Claim: Short stint of Herceptin holds promise for breast cancer
Example Output: This story discusses the results of a recent study involving women with high-risk early breast cancer (node positive or >2cm, age younger than 66 – there were 25 year olds on the trial). One aspect of this trial focused on the short-term use of Herceptin with chemotherapy. Women with overexpression of the HER2/neu gene, as measured by the CISH immunohistochemistry, were randomly assigned 9 weeks of Herceptin or no Herceptin immediately following breast cancer surgery and in conjunction with certain types of chemotherapy. This regimen of treatment differed from other trials in which Herceptin was given for 12 months following chemotherapy. In this study, the drug was given in conjunction with certain types of chemotherapy, but before radiation and chemotherapy regimens known to damage the heart. The journalist states the Herceptin was given “prior to chemotherapy,” which is not completely accurate. Herceptin is only FDA approved to treat advanced breast cancer, but it is used in clinical trials in early-stage breast cancer. However, this is not mentioned in the story. There is adequate discussion of the study design and reporting of disease-free survival at 3 years follow-up. There was little discussion in the piece of the side effects of chemotherapy as reported in the trial, but the addition of Herceptin was the main focus of the story. While the journalist provides quantitative benefit of 9 weeks of Herceptin vs. no Herceptin, and notes no cardiac failure in the Herceptin group, the follow-up period of 3 years may not be long-enough to determine the effects of chemotherapy and Herceptin on the heart. Overall, the journalist did a good job describing the randomization, as well as putting the results into context of other trials, and into context of how this may or may not change providers’ practice. The story could have better stated the limitations of analysis for such a small subgroup (116 in each arm). The small sample randomized to Herceptin certainly warrants more study, and although the relative benefits were large, these women still had fairly good recurrence free survival — 80% w/o and 90% with — so although it looks like that will translate to overall survival. The question for women with overexpression of the HER/neu gene is: How much do you want to do to avoid recurrence? Sources in addition to the study investigators are cited, which provides some balance to the piece, however, there is no mention that the trial was funded in part by pharmaceutical companies. Some study investigators also receive research funding from drug companies.

Example Input: Paragraph: "With abortion now a key issue in the debate over health care reform, abortion rights supporters are highlighting President Barack Obama's promise about the issue during the presidential campaign. In an alert to members on Nov. 9, 2009, Planned Parenthood Action Fund said, ""President Obama campaigned on a promise to put reproductive health care at the center of his reform plan."" We'll address that claim here. We'll also be adding it to our Obameter database of campaign promises. The group's claim is virtually identical to one made in September by House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who said in a statement that, ""during his quest for the presidency, now-President Obama declared that everyone deserves access to reproductive health care that includes abortion, and vowed that this 'right' would be at the heart of his health care reform plan if elected president."" We researched Boehner's claim and concluded he was right about Obama's promise. To explore Obama's promise on abortion coverage in his health care plan, you need to go back to a July 17, 2007, speech he gave to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. In that speech, he discussed his commitment to how ""reproductive care"" -- a term a campaign aide said included abortion coverage -- would fit into his health care reform plan. Obama said, ""In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose. Essentially what we're doing is, we’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we’re putting more money into preventive care."" The words Obama used in that speech mirror those in the Planned Parenthood Action Fund's recent alert even more closely than they did Boehner's formulation. So it's certainly correct, as the group says, that Obama ""campaigned on a promise to put reproductive health care at the center of his reform plan."" It's worth nothing that since he spoke to that group -- an important constituency for someone seeking the Democratic nomination -- he has chosen his words carefully. Of all the words Obama has spoken and written about health care reform since 2007 -- a voluminous amount, to be sure -- the terms ""abortion"" and ""reproductive health"" haven't popped up very often. Indeed, on several of the rare occasions in which Obama or his staff have broached the subject, it's been to assure Americans that his health care proposal would not promote abortions. For instance, in his prime-time address to Congress on Sept. 9, 2009, Obama's only mention of abortion -- which came immediately after he was interrupted by the heckling Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. -- was that ""one more misunderstanding I want to clear up: Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."" That's a reflection of the sensitivity surrounding the issue. Obama's promise to the abortion rights group during the primary campaign could now be a liability before a broader audience that includes many people opposed to abortion rights. Still, Planned Parenthood is correct that Obama campaigned on a promise that he would put reproductive health care at the center of his reform plan."" After all, he was speaking to . . . Planned Parenthood. So we find the group's claim to be ." Claim: President Obama campaigned on a promise to put reproductive health care at the center of his reform plan.
Example Output: "Planned Parenthood says Obama promised to ""put reproductive health care at the center"" of health reform"

Example Input: Paragraph: “You want to get clean so bad. You know something’s killing you and you can’t stop,” said the 33-year-old who used heroin for 10 years. This spring was different. While in a jail work-release program, she took a medication called buprenorphine. It quieted a voice in her brain that told her to keep using. When she got out of jail, she headed for an Olympia clinic where a doctor is working to spread a philosophy called “medication first.” The surprising approach scraps requirements for counseling, abstinence or even a commitment to recovery. Instead, it starts with fast access to prescribed medicine that prevents withdrawal sickness. After patients start feeling better, they choose their next steps. In St. Louis, Seattle and San Francisco, people with opioid addictions can start medication on their first day of treatment. Early research suggests the approach can change lives. But it will be a tough sell elsewhere: Nearly two-thirds of U.S. treatment centers don’t offer anti-addiction drugs and there’s resistance to easy access. Within two weeks of walking into the Olympia clinic, Cline had a job at a millwork shop. Now, nine months later, she has received a promotion and a raise, rebuilt relationships, found a room in a sober house and is proud to display a chain of “Clean & Serene” key fobs she earned from Narcotics Anonymous. She takes buprenorphine twice daily. “I’ve got my life back,” she said. The opioid crisis now kills more Americans than car crashes and is estimated to cost more than $500 billion a year. The epidemic is driving new treatment strategies for the 2 million Americans addicted to opioids. Bupe, as it’s known, isn’t new. Approved to treat opioid addiction in 2002, it blocks the effect of other opioids and eases withdrawal. It’s an opioid, but an imperfect fit for the brain’s receptors, so its effect is mild and it doesn’t cause a high. It also lowers the danger of overdose and raises the likelihood a person will stay in treatment. But finding a prescriber without a waiting list is difficult. Guidelines say bupe should be used alongside counseling, which some doctors don’t feel equipped to provide. Success stories have convinced some experts that buprenorphine should be available in homeless camps, syringe exchanges and anywhere people use drugs. “This is an obvious thing to do,” said University of Washington researcher Caleb Banta-Green. STABILIZING INFLUENCE OR FALSE PROMISE? Martyn is a 57-year-old former heroin user who goes by one name. He was living in a Seattle homeless camp known as the Jungle, running errands for drug dealers. “Toward the end, you’re not trying to get high anymore,” he said. “You’re just trying to not be sick.” He got his first bupe prescription at Neighborcare Health, a free downtown clinic. Once stabilized, he found a spot in a sober home with help from a caseworker. “Now I’ve got a little room in a house I share with seven other guys.” On bupe, Martyn said, “I don’t get that high feeling. And that’s OK.” Critics worry medication-first clinics will add to the flood of opioids on the street. The tactic could also lead to a false understanding of addiction, said Atlanta-based counselor Samson Teklemariam, who directs training for NAADAC, the Association for Addiction Professionals. “You’re promising the public a cure,” Teklemariam said. “There’s not a pill that you can take to alleviate symptoms of true addiction.” In Missouri, some treatment programs had shunned buprenorphine, particularly long-term, in favor of abstinence-based counseling and support groups. Some didn’t have doctors or nurses who could prescribe it. Some believed medications were a crutch that prevented true recovery. In 2017, with overdose deaths rising, Missouri tied federal grant money to a medication-first philosophy. Programs would get money only if they started clients on meds rapidly and if they dropped rules about medication time limits and attending counseling. The result? Medication treatment increased and more patients stayed in treatment longer, said Rachel Winograd of University of Missouri-St. Louis who studied the implementation. There’s pushback in Missouri from those who see the idea as at odds with “full and thriving recovery,” Winograd said. “The state is saying, we can do both.” MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS Research is beginning on the idea. In New York, 250 drug users will be enrolled at syringe exchanges. Some will be randomly assigned to get same-day bupe prescriptions and others will get standard care. “If the older treatment philosophies were working, we wouldn’t have the problems we’re having today,” said Dr. Aaron Fox, who is leading the study. In Washington state, health officials are encouraging jails and drug courts to embrace bupe. Many are changing their policies. Not everyone approves. In Skagit County, Prosecuting Attorney Rich Weyrich calls bupe “low-grade heroin.” He bristles at requirements tying drug court money to medication assisted treatment. “There are lots of things happening in the big cities that I don’t agree with,” Weyrich said. Sixty miles away in Seattle, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg has tried to convince other prosecutors of bupe’s value. His sister, Shelley, used heroin for years. In 2015, after starting treatment with bupe, she got clean. “I saw firsthand the difference it made in her life,” Satterberg said. “We became a family.” Years of drug use had worn down Shelley’s health. She died in March 2018 of an infection at age 51. Bupe should be “as easy to get as heroin,” Satterberg said. To those in law enforcement who worry about it trading on the street, he said: “At least they’re not buying fentanyl and supporting the Mexican cartels. At least they’re not going to overdose. And they might find out buprenorphine actually makes them feel better.” A pilot study in Seattle treated 147 patients in one year, most of them homeless. The program reached capacity within three months and kept people in treatment at rates similar to other programs. That drew financial support from a foundation, resulting in four new sites. They are expected to serve 1,250 patients over two years. To treat one patient for one year at the Olympia Bupe Clinic costs $3,000 in public money, said its medical director, Dr. Lucinda Grande. She said the money will prevent steeper hospital costs down the road. A ‘GODSEND’ On a recent evening, Grande spent more than three hours helping people start or maintain treatment with bupe. She met with patients in a cluster of donated furniture, a floral-pattern sofa and chairs. Two new patients wanted to start bupe for the first time. Former patient Jamie Cline proudly told Grande of recent accomplishments at her workplace. “You’re getting used to being successful,” Grande observed, smiling with encouragement. Later, pharmacist Brad Livingstone arrived. At the front desk, he opened a clear plastic bin with 14 pill bottles inside. He called out a name. Jon Combes, 36, of Lacey, Washington, stepped up to get his pills, a “godsend” that has helped him sleep. “They don’t care what your past is,” Combes said of the clinic’s staff. “They just want to get your future going.” Combes had been coming to the clinic for three weeks. He took home a 12-day supply of medication. That evening, 31 people picked up medications. Young men with tattoos and ballcaps. A middle-aged woman with stylish hair and smart clothes. A man in a wheelchair. A woman with a school-age child. Some nights there are as many as 45 picking up meds. Cline scrolled through her phone to find photos of herself when she was in the depths of heroin addiction. The pictures remind her of where she’s been, a time she does not want to forget. “I’m always going to be an addict,” she said. “I’ve got to be very careful where I step.” ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support  from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Walk-in clinics for opioid addiction offer meds first, fast.
Example Output:
Every time she got out of jail, Jamie Cline started hustling again for heroin, driven by an addiction she didn’t understand.