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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The Paris regional administration suspended the job of removing hazardous substances from the fire-ravaged Paris cathedral last month under pressure from labor inspectors concerned about health risks for workers. The administration had said that when the lead-removal work resumed, stricter safety procedures, new equipment and allowing much fewer workers inside at a time would “prevent any release of polluting elements to the outside.” But representatives from environmental groups and the CGT union said at a news conference Monday they don’t think the government safeguards go far enough. They asked for a regularly updated chart showing the level of lead in the air. Labor and environmental groups are also pushing for the creation of a medical center to monitor of firefighters, workers and residents. Paris Deputy Mayor Anne Souyris said updated measurements of lead levels are set for release on Tuesday. The decontamination work is scheduled to resume Wednesday, starting with the square in front of Notre Dame and adjacent streets, Souyris said. Hundreds of tons of lead that was in Notre Dame’s spire and roof melted during the April 15 fire, which came close to destroying the cathedral. Lead levels remain elevated at some spots inside and in the soil of the adjacent park and forecourt, according to the Paris regional health agency. Those areas have been closed to the public since the fire. The environmental activists and union officials said they want a containment shield built over Notre Dame to keep more lead from being released into the atmosphere. “For the efficiency of the decontamination measures within the area, it is absolutely necessary that the site is confined”, Annie Thebaud-Mony, co-founder of health and environment group Henri Pezerat, said. Notre Dame rector Patrick Chauvet acknowledged that lead can escape into the environment from a big hole in the cathedral’s roof but ruled out building a containment shield before the decontamination work resumes. Paris authorities ordered new checks of schools and day care centers in the Notre Dame neighborhood and recommended blood tests for children under age 7 and pregnant women who live nearby. Children are especially vulnerable to health problems from lead poisoning and exposure. Claim: France: Groups want Notre Dame enclosed during lead cleanup.

Ex Output:
Environmental groups and one of France’s largest labor unions called Monday for a containment shield and other safety measures to ensure decontamination work at Notre Dame Cathedral does not expose workers and residents to unsafe levels of lead.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Senate Republicans’ surprise move to repeal the requirement to have health insurance into their tax reform bill revealed numbers that few people had noted before. (The mandate says that everyone must have coverage or face a fine.) ""80 percent of the tax falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less,"" Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News Nov. 15. ""We’re taking a failed policy that punishes people with taxes -- low-income people. (We’re) taking that tax away, giving them tax relief there, and then ploughing that back into tax relief for middle-income families."" This was no throw-away line. Thune is the third-ranking Republican in the party’s Senate leadership, and his colleagues delivered similar versions of the talking point throughout the day. In 2016, the fine for not having insurance stood at $695 for adults. The formula has a few wrinkles that brought the maximum penalty to $2,085 for a family, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever was larger. Going forward, it rises with inflation (unless of course, Congress repeals it). Not everyone without insurance has to pay the fine. The list of exemptions is long. It includes a family with income under $20,800; people who have suffered domestic violence in the household; anyone who has suffered the death of a close family member; someone who has received a utility shut-off notice, and more. Thune’s office said he got his information from 2015 data from the Internal Revenue Service. In one key sense, Thune is correct. Out of all the tax returns sent to the IRS that included a payment of the fine, 79 percent came from households making $50,000 a year or less. (Technically, the income is adjusted gross income, which understates actual income. But on average, the adjustment makes little difference for this check.) However, Thune didn’t specify that he was talking about the number of people. His description of the tax could just as equally refer to the dollars paid. The government collected a little over $3 billion from about 6.6 million households. Of that, about $1.8 billion, 60 percent, came from households with incomes under $50,000. So in dollar terms, about 60 percent of the tax fell on people in that income range, not the 80 percent that Thune said. Thune’s communications staff told us he was talking about the number of people and the number of returns. We reached several health care and tax researchers, and none of them challenged the core numbers. Gordon Mermin with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center ran the numbers and found that as a percentage of income, the tax fell heaviest on the $25,000 to $50,000 group. On average, that group paid 3.1 percent of income. Mermin told us households in this range are more likely to lack insurance, and due to their incomes, are less likely to be able to claim an exemption from the fine. ""People shouldn’t be surprised the $25,000 to $50,000 group is affected the most,"" Mermin said. But researchers found it odd that people making less than $25,000 had paid as much as they did. The $10,000 to $25,000 group accounted for 22 percent of the payments, and about 36 percent of the households. ""Folks are just making a mistake,"" said Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare and an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ""Given the exemptions, there is no way such low-income folks should be paying."" The IRS knows this has happened. It’s been sending out letters since 2015, telling filers ""it appears that you may have reported owing too much Health Care Shared Responsibility Payment,"" the penalty’s formal name. ""The IRS has reached out to some taxpayers to let them know they’ve overpaid the penalty, but they don’t have the capacity to do that in all cases,"" said Tara Straw at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank. Straw said the IRS targets people who automatically qualify for an exemption because of their income, a factor that is stronger in states that did not expand Medicaid to people making 138 percent of federal poverty. Where the IRS effort falls short, she said, relates to personal circumstances such as a death in the family or a utility service cut-off notice. Larry Levitt at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a neutral source of health care data, also agreed that ""there certainly appear to be some low-income people paying the penalty who could be claiming an exemption."" A just-released study from Kaiser suggests the number could be large. The report found that about 5 million uninsured people could get coverage for less than the cost of the penalty. Thanks to the subsidies in Obamacare, the lowest-level plans would be free to many of those people, or if not free, available at a very low cost. If  everyone took advantage of those subsidies, the 6.6 million households paying the penalty because they lack coverage would fall significantly. We don’t know how the numbers would shake out because about 4 million people neither paid the fine nor told the IRS that they had coverage. Republicans offer the repeal of the penalty as a boon to working Americans, and for some it would be. But the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytic arm of Congress, has found that removing the penalty makes it less likely that people will seek out insurance, even if it would be free or very affordable. Thune said that 80 percent of the individual mandate penalty falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less. In terms of the number of returns in which people paid the fine, that figure is correct. In terms of the dollars collected, it overshoots the mark. People in that income range account for about 60 percent of the payments. Still, an independent analysis showed that households in the $25,000 to 50,000 income range paid the highest percentage of income on the penalty. There’s strong evidence that many lower income people are paying the fine by mistake, and millions could both avoid it and gain health coverage for less than the cost of the fine. But as far as who is paying the fine." Claim: 80 percent of the (individual mandate) tax falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less.

Ex Output:
Thune said that 80 percent of the individual mandate penalty falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less. In terms of the number of returns in which people paid the fine, that figure is correct. In terms of the dollars collected, it overshoots the mark. People in that income range account for about 60 percent of the payments. Still, an independent analysis showed that households in the $25,000 to 50,000 income range paid the highest percentage of income on the penalty. There’s strong evidence that many lower income people are paying the fine by mistake, and millions could both avoid it and gain health coverage for less than the cost of the fine. But as far as who is paying the fine. 


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Although it touches on reimbursement, this story never addresses the key issues that most readers will be interested in — how much do palliative care consultations typically cost, does insurance cover it, and does this approach stand to increase or decrease the overall cost burden on our health care system? Like the competing coverage, this story featured prominent discussion of the survival benefit associated with palliative care. We were pleased to see that it also spent some time on the improvement in quality of life and depression scores as well as the reduction in aggressive chemotherapy usage toward the end of life in the palliative care group. We wish the story had been more precise in its quantification of some the benefits — it notes that the palliative care group reported ""less depression"" and ""happier lives"" but offers no way to judge the magnitude of the benefit. However, we don’t think these shortcomings were enough to throw the story out of balance. As with the competing coverage, we’ll rule this one not applicable since the harms of palliative care are thought to be minimal. This story deserves praise on a number of fronts: On the downside, there was no cautionary language at all about the limitations of this study. The WSJ, by contrast, explained that the study was conducted at a single site and couldn’t be blinded. It also noted that patients in the palliative care arm got more overall attention from caregivers, which might have affected the results. A close call, but since the evidence always has limitations, we think it’s an important journalistic best practice to always provide some kind of comment about those limitations. This story didn’t meet that standard. No disease-mongering here. A strong effort here. The story quotes one of the study authors, an independent editorialist, a physician-writer knowledgeable about end-of-life care, as well as leaders of professional groups that support hospice and palliative care. As noted in the competing reviews, the point of the study was to compare early palliative care with existing standard cancer treatment. However, this story, like the others, could have provided more information about what standard cancer treatment — the current ""existing alternative"" — entails. Mixed bag here. The Times noted that Medicare pays for some palliative care services but that billing difficulties may deter physicians from offering it. However, there was no mention of the difficulty patients may have accessing the type of outpatient palliative care services that were offered in this study. Most non-hospice palliative care is currently provided only in the inpatient / acute care hospital setting. A borderline satisfactory. By all accounts, this is the first randomized controlled study to show that providing palliative care early after a diagnosis of advanced cancer improves survival and other outcomes. The story accurately characterizes the significance of this. This story was not based on a press release." Claim: Palliative Care Extends Life, Study Finds

Ex Output:

"Our reviewers were split on one distinctive feature of this story – the discussion of the health care reform bill brought Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin into the story. One reviewer thought that had an uncertain effect and that the space could have been better used to provide more practical information about costs, benefits, and the limitations of this particular study. The other two reviewers felt it was an appropriate and laudable editorial decision – that because the field of palliative care has been haunted by the ""death panel"" rhetoric of last summer, bringing it to the forefront in this story confronts directly one of the issues that prevent people from accessing palliative care, even when it is available — concern about palliative care hastening death. We appreciate that the Times’s foray into this issue added some nuance that was missing in other coverage. The Times coverage also is notable for offering the most accessible description of what palliative care actually means, including practical examples of the services and treatment provided to patients. The competing coverage often relied on jargon about ""psychosocial support"" and other vague terminology that will likely be meaningless to many readers. We can’t know if palliative care is a good thing if we don’t know what it means. The Times description is good enough to be quoted at length:  ""Palliative care typically begins with a long conversation about what the patient with a terminal diagnosis wants out of his remaining life. It includes the options any oncologist addresses: surgery, chemotherapy and radiation and their side effects. But it also includes how much suffering a patient wishes to bear, effects on the family, and legal, insurance and religious issues. Teams focus on controlling pain, nausea, swelling, shortness of breath and other side effects; they also address patients’ worries and make sure they have help with making meals, dressing and bathing when not hospitalized."""