instruction:
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.
question:
Paragraph: "The story does not discuss the costs of annual mammography screening, or even provide a range of costs. The story does not discuss any health care policy cost repercussions of breast cancer screening recommendations. The story does not discuss the cost of unnecessary biopsies or other treatments for women who have a false positive diagnosis via mammography (greater in women 40-49). The story highlights the 26 percent difference in breast cancer death rates, but fails to include any information about the overall risk. The researchers reported that based on their results you would have to screen 1252 women for a decade in order to prevent one breast cancer death. In other words, for the remaining 1251 women, a decade of mammograms did not alter their breast cancer mortality. Although this story does not go into detail about the potential harms of screening mammography, it does include comments from independent experts who point out that the scans do lead to the diagnosis and treatment of women whose tumors would never have become life-threatening. This story briefly explains key features of this study. It also includes critiques from independent experts who note limitations of the study design and analysis – although the statement that the researchers ""did not compare the broader breast cancer death rates"" in the counties"" is unclear. Overall, there is much more the Times could have done to analyze methodological questions surrounding the Swedish study. (For example, read our blog on this matter.) Interviews with Peter Gotzsche and with Donald Berry saved the story. But so much more could have been done – another reason why more than 471 words should have been devoted to the reporting. The story does not discuss the prevalence of breast cancer among women in their 40s. That omission would not usually be considered disease mongering, but since surveys indicate most people overestimate the risk of breast cancer among women in their 40s, failing to mention the actual rates leaves those misconceptions intact. The story does include comments from experts who raise concerns about overdiagnosis; that is, the number of breast tumors discovered that are not actually life-threatening. A strong point of this story is the inclusion of comments from several independent experts with a variety of perspectives on the meaning of the latest study results. The story does not mention any potential conflicts of interest, but the researchers did not list any in their journal article. Although not discussed in detail, the story does mention that the United States Preventive Services Task Force has questioned the value of screening mammograms for women younger than 50, thus implying that not being screened is an option to consider. The availability of mammography was not explicitly addressed, but we can’t criticize the story for that. Instead, we give a Not Applicable score for this criterion. This story could have done a better job explaining how this study – and its methods – are different from earlier research on the topic.But two things lead us to give it a barely satisfactory score. First, there was a brief attempt to mention the unique ""circumstances"" of the Swedish study. Second, the story also pointed out that there’s a historical ideological pattern in the study authors’ work – noting that they ""have long been advocates of mammography screening."" It’s clear that the story was not based on a news release." Claim: Mammogram Benefit Seen for Women in Their 40s
answer:
This story includes strong comments from independent experts that can help readers get a broader understanding of the results of a study that compared breast cancer death rates among women in their 40s who lived in areas of Sweden that did or did not offer routine mammography. However, because the story reports only the percentage difference in death rates, without including absolute numbers or the number of women who need to be screened to prevent one death, readers may get the impression that the effect of mammography was larger than what the researchers actually reported. People commonly overestimate the risk of breast cancer death among women in their 40s. By not including any information about the absolute numbers of deaths among women in this study or in the population at large, the story misses an opportunity to correct common misconceptions.


question:
Paragraph: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that officials are urging at-risk people, such as recreational drug users and the homeless, to get vaccinated. The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services said Wednesday that the state has recorded 414 cases in 35 counties since September 2017, mostly in the southeast part of the state. Only about 10 cases per year were reported before then. Health officials say the virus has sent 233 people to the hospital and caused two deaths. Hepatitis A is a viral infection. It usually spreads when a person ingests the virus from objects, food or drinks contaminated by undetected amounts of stool from an infected person. ___ Information from: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, http://www.stltoday.com Claim: Health officials raise concerns about hepatitis A outbreak.
answer:
Officials are raising concerns that a hepatitis A outbreak in Missouri could worsen if the liver disease spreads to urban areas.


question:
Paragraph: The 9-2 vote showed support among lawmakers for a modified version of legislation that has spurred heated debate. But the vote also showed division within the Assembly’s Democratic majority. America’s most populous state allows students exemptions from required vaccinations for medical reasons. But proponents of the bill calling for greater scrutiny of the exemptions argue that parents are shopping for unscrupulous doctors who will write one even if it is not necessary. Sen. Richard Pan, a Democrat from Sacramento and author of the bill, argued that greater oversight of medical exemptions is a matter of protection for children. “California cannot allow a handful of unscrupulous physicians to put our children in danger,” he told the Assembly Health Committee. But hundreds of people at the hearing urged lawmakers to vote against the bill. Critics argue Pan’s legislation amounts to government overreach. “It takes the state government and puts it squarely in the middle of the doctor and patient relationship,” said Leigh Dundas of the group Advocates for Physicians’ Rights, which has recently bought Facebook ads targeting the legislation. Several parents told lawmakers they would not comply with the law. The five-hour hearing came to epitomize the heated debate around the bill. A packed gallery jeered, and some threatened Pan. Under the bill, the public health department would scrutinize doctors who grant more than five medical exemptions in a year and schools with vaccination rates of less than 95%. Officials say that threshold is needed to provide “community immunity,” which protects those who haven’t been vaccinated for medical reasons or because they are too young. The measure, which Gov. Gavin Newsom said he will sign if it reaches his desk, comes as measles cases have reached a 25-year high in the U.S. Lawmakers in other states also have been considering changes to confront the increase. Maine eliminated religious and philosophical exemptions, while New York lawmakers ended a religious exemption. Washington state halted most exemptions for the measles vaccine, though legislators in Oregon defeated a measure that would have made it harder for families to opt out. California’s legislation has received national attention after actor Jessica Biel appeared at the Capitol last week to lobby lawmakers against the measure with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent critic of vaccination. Pan initially proposed requiring state health officials sign off on every exemption from vaccinations. But he dropped that requirement in the version of the bill that advanced Thursday. Among the provisions in the revised California legislation: — Doctors can’t charge for filling out a medical exemption form or conducting a related medical examination. They would have to sign the forms under penalty of perjury. — California Department of Public Health doctors or registered nurses would review exemptions issued by local medical providers who issue five or more a year or at schools with high exemption rates. — The state public health officer, who is a doctor, could revoke any exemptions that don’t meet national guidelines. — Parents could appeal to an independent panel of doctors. — Officials could consider families’ medical histories in allowing exemptions in addition to immunization guidelines issued by federal medical authorities. Supporters said the legislation would permit exemptions for the less than 1% of students who should avoid vaccinations because they would have a severe allergic reaction or have impaired immunity from a liver problem, HIV, chemotherapy or other conditions. Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, praised the bill during Thursday’s hearing as “science-based” while still allowing robust medical exemptions. New figures show the rate of kindergartners with permanent medical exemptions has quadrupled since California banned personal exemptions, and more than 100 schools have medical exemption rates exceeding 10%. Public health officials have said they are stymied in investigating these cases because of a lack of oversight. The bill’s backers argue its additional reporting requirements will help the state curb “doctor shopping” and abuses of the exemption system. Still, critics questioned whether the measure would discourage doctors from writing exemptions at all. Those arguments resonated with some lawmakers. “I want the freedom to make choices for my family,” said Assemblywoman Autumn Burke, a Democrat from Marina Del Rey who voted against the bill. Claim: California Assembly committee backs vaccine exemption law.
answer:

A California Assembly committee backed new rules for vaccination exemptions on Thursday following a raucous, hours-long hearing in the midst of a national measles outbreak and renewed scrutiny of immunization policies.