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.
--------
Question: "The article doesn't mention costs of angioplasty or costs of medications, which presumably must be taken for the rest of one's life. The article does mention that angioplasty is expensive, but does not provide real numbers or comparisons. The story provides absolute numbers of the primary endpoint over a 4-year period — ""17 percent of those given angioplasty and drugs and nearly 16 percent of those given drugs alone had either died, suffered another heart attack or developed heart failure — results considered to be statistically the same."" The story states that there was a worrisome trend toward more heart attacks in people who received late angioplasty compared to those who received just medications, although the story also tells readers that this could have been a statistical fluke or due to chance. However, other harms of the procedure were not discussed, including risks of the procedure itself, including bleeding, infection, or emotional distress/anxiety. The article also does not discuss risks of the alternative, e.g. medications, which have side effects, costs, or inconvenience. But, the story does discuss the main harm found in the study, e.g. a trend toward increased heart attacks. The research is important because it is a randomized controlled trial and the first such trial to be conducted for the clinical situation of late angioplasty in people with few to no symptoms after their heart attack. The story tells readers that enrollment of patients was delayed because ""doctors were unwilling to risk randomly assigning patients to drug treatment alone,"" indirectly stating that the study was a randomized trial. While an astute reader could probably pick up that this was a randomized trial, this fact could have been clearer. In addition, there is little context around this being the first randomized trial for this clinical situation (as opposed to retrospective observational studies), although the story does tell readers that the results were surprising and that they could change guidelines. The story appropriately describes a heart attack, and more importantly, reinforces that early opening of the artery to restore blood flow to the heart after heart attack is still beneficial and that these results don't apply to that population or indeed the majority of people receiving angioplasties. No obvious disease mongering. The article provides an independent source of information from the chairman of the American Heart Association program committee that reviewed the research. The story also provides information from the director of the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but tells readers that this organization largely funded the research, therefore disclosing potential conflicts of interest. The story tells readers that the alternative that was tested in the latest research was medications, including those to lower blood pressure and cholesterol, aspirin, and anti-clotting drugs. The story could have mentioned beta-blockers specifically, since the protective effect of drug treatment may come from this family of drugs, although this is not yet proven. And the story could have been clearer about the course of treatment, e.g. that these medications are generally taken for the rest of one's life. The story tells readers that the usual treatment for people suffering a heart attack is angioplasty, even for a subset of people who weren't treated right away (the study population)/  The article also tells readers that the tendency to perform angioplasty electively (3 to 28 days after the event) was so strong, that recruitment to the study was prolonged in order to find enough patients (and their doctors) willing to participate in the study. It's widely understood that angioplasty and standard drug therapy after heart attack are not new. The article provides independent sources of information not included in the press release."

Answer: Study says late angioplasty futile


Question: "As the 2014 New Hampshire Senate race veers toward a conclusion, the state’s next senator needs the support of women voters. Incumbent Jeanne Shaheen underscored that point when she targeted Republican challenger Scott Brown’s record supporting women’s reproductive rights during his tenure as a state senator from Massachusetts. Her aim was to undercut Brown’s assertion that he is a pro-choice politician. An ad with a female narrator released on Oct. 7 said, ""In Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The ad, titled ""Force,"" drew a swift response from Brown. He held a press conference the same day the ad was released, calling it a lie and adding that it was ""not only insensitive, it is also deeply offensive."" ""I have always been a pro-choice, independent Republican and have a strong record of supporting women’s health care,"" Brown said in Derry, N.H., with his wife Gail by his side. Brown demanded that Shaheen pull the ad, and the next day he launched his own ad calling Shaheen’s commercial a ""smear campaign."" More than ever in this hotly contested Senate race, this seemed like a job for PolitiFact. For support, the ad, and Shaheen’s campaign, pointed to Massachusetts Senate Bill 979, ""An Act Relative to a Woman’s Right to Know,"" filed in 2005. While the bill co-sponsored by Brown and Republican Michael R. Knapik eventually failed, it would have given any woman seeking an abortion information and mandated 24 hours to consider the consequences of that decision. (Exceptions would only be given in the case of a medical emergency.) ""The purpose of the Woman's Right to Know Act is to ensure that every woman considering an abortion receives complete information on the procedure, the risks, the status of her unborn child, and her alternatives, and sufficient reflection time, thereby reducing the possibility of serious, lasting, or life threatening consequences of a medical, emotional and psychological nature,"" the bill states. Similar laws have been proposed and enacted in other states following a 1992 Supreme Court decision allowing the state of Pennsylvania under its ""Abortion Control Act"" to require a woman seeking an abortion to give her informed consent prior to the procedure, receive a host of information about abortion and adoption, and wait 24 hours before having an abortion. The introduction to the Massachusetts bill cites that Supreme Court decision, saying the state ""has an important interest in ensuring that women seeking abortions are provided a fully informed choice and a sufficient period of time to reflect on the information provided, ‘to reduce the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed.’ Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 882 (1992)."" So how about those photographs of fetuses that women would be ""forced"" to look at? Like similar laws proposed and passed elsewhere, the proposed Massachusetts law would have required doctors or their representatives to provide women with lots of information at least 24 hours before an abortion was scheduled, including the names of adoption agencies and contact information for public and private agencies that offer financial and medical support to women throughout a pregnancy and after childbirth. It also required women to receive descriptions of the ""anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two week gestational increments from fertilization to full term, including color photographs."" If photos were unavailable ""realistic drawings"" were considered acceptable. The bill made clear that photos of fetuses must be provided to women seeking abortions, but didn’t stop there. It also called for descriptions of the different methods of abortion and ""the physical, psychological and emotional risks or medical complications commonly associated with each method; a description of the physical, psychological and emotional risks or medical complications of pregnancy and delivery; a description of the support obligations of the father of a child born alive."" Before performing an abortion, the doctor or a representative would have to ask the woman if she had ""seen"" the information and ""provide the woman with an opportunity to contact abortion alternative agencies at this time should she so desire."" In addition, a woman’s signature was required before the abortion was performed to give her consent and ""indicate that she has been offered the information described in this section."" Brown says the bill was intended to give adoption a chance and ""did not force women to do anything. I would never force women to do anything."" He’s got a point. Nowhere in the bill is the word ""force"" used. Still, the language of the bill certainly ensures women would be given the information, asks them if they had ""seen it,"" and provided at least 24 hours to review it before having an abortion. Our ruling Shaheen’s ad says that ""in Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses."" The measure backed by Brown nine years ago made sure that women were provided photos of developing fetuses, along with a lot more information. It certainly forced doctors and their representatives to provide this information to women seeking abortions -- except in cases of emergency -- and it ensured women received the information both through verbal questions and a signed consent form. Brown has a point that the bill wouldn't have ""forced"" them to look at color photographs -- but it did just about everything else it could possibly do up to that line. This statement is accurate but needs clarification."

Answer: In Massachusetts, Scott Brown pushed for a law to force women considering abortion -- force them -- to look at color photographs of developing fetuses.


Question: "Patients used to pay $10,000 a year for cancer drugs, but now they’re paying $10,000 a month, according to HBO talk show host Bill Maher. That’s a message circulating on Facebook recently, promoted by the ""Bill Maher Fanpage."" A reader asked us to check it out. The quote comes from the Oct. 2 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher discussed Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company that jacked up the cost of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 essentially overnight. ""Not that (Turing CEO Martin) Shkreli is unusual for the pharmaceutical industry,"" Maher said on his show. ""Fifteen years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month because this cartel owns the U.S. government every bit as much as Mexican drug lords own theirs."" It’s well known that the cost of health care is on the rise, but has the annual cost of cancer drugs really increased so dramatically in just a decade and a half? Maher’s team sent us links to some news articles about the rising cost of cancer drugs, and we tracked down information that speaks to his claim. The best information we could nail down is the cost of anticancer drugs at launch, the initial price when the Federal Drug Administration approves a drug. These are the sticker prices set by the pharmaceutical companies, not the prices patients actually pay out of pocket, which are reduced by insurance payments, patient assistance programs and other discounts. Costs increases, though, are often passed on to consumers. Maher has a point that cancer drug costs are on the rise. We charted the launch costs of cancer drugs the FDA approved since 1999, using a list compiled by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The second half of Maher’s statement -- that cancer drugs now cost about $10,000 a month -- is also on solid ground. Of drugs approved in 2015, the monthly average cost is $11,319. And experts in the field often cite that $10,000 figure themselves. Because many cancer drugs are not administered to patients for a full year, it’s difficult to determine an average annual cost, so the first half of Maher’s statement -- that they cost about $10,000 a year 15 years ago -- is hard to nail down. To his point, though, the monthly cost of a new drug was dramatically lower in 2000 than what it is now at about $4,634. One of the news articles that Maher’s team sent us is an academic article in the Journal of Oncology Practice that supports his statement. The report reads, ""The average cancer drug price for approximately one year of therapy or a total treatment duration was less than $10,000 before 2000."" Maher’s statement is ""in the ballpark,"" if not an understatement, said Rena Conti, a health economist at the University of Chicago who researches cancer drug prices. In a 2015 paper Conti authored with three other leading health economists, she examined the launch cost of anticancer drugs controlled for inflation and the benefit to the patient (how much it prolongs life expectancy). For example, in 1995, anticancer drugs cost $54,100 for an additional year of life, the study found. In 2005, drugs cost $139,100 for the same benefit, and the price grew to $207,000 in 2013. In the United States, pharmaceutical companies set their own drug prices. What’s pushing them to increase the costs? It’s not necessarily that cancer drugs are getting better and are thus worth more. Conti’s research concluded that just about one-fifth of the cancer drug cost increase can be attributed to a better product. There are two primary forces behind annual cancer drug cost increases, Conti said: First, pharmaceutical companies estimate a ""zone of indifference"" -- based on last year’s prices, how much more would buyers be willing to pay? Second, rebates and discounts for drugs have also increased over time, and this creates an incentive for drug companies to increase their costs alongside the discounts. Pharmaceutical companies defend drug price increases by emphasizing that the revenue funds innovative research and that drugs lower overall health care costs by treating illnesses. Because there’s no formal price regulation and competition in the industry is rare, ""It really is a system where there’s no downward pressure on drug prices,"" said Peter Bach, director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Center for Health Policy and Outcomes in an interview with Fortune. Our ruling Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn’t easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren’t used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify, though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher’s numbers are a little squishy, but they’re in the ballpark."

Answer:
15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it’s $10,000 a month.