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: According to statistics through Saturday, there were 3,395 cases — included 63 new cases reported the prior week. To underscore the outbreak, the Panama City News Herald reported the state totaled 1,175 reported cases of hepatitis A in the five previous years combined — with 548 of those cases in 2018, according to state Department of Health data. Hepatitis A can cause liver damage and is spread through such things as fecal matter. That can include transmission by people not properly washing their hands after going to the bathroom and contaminating food or drinks. Health officials urge people to get vaccinated against the disease. As of Saturday, Pasco County had the most cases in the state in 2019, with 414. Claim: Nearly 3,400 Hepatitis A cases reported in Florida in 2019.

Answer: Florida health officials say there were nearly 3,400 hepatitis A cases in 2019.


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: "Among the flurry of policies President Donald Trump put in force in his first week was to reimpose a ban on taxpayer dollars going to overseas groups that have anything to do with abortion. The so-called Mexico City policy was born under President Ronald Reagan and since then, with partisan regularity, Republican presidents invoke it and Democratic ones reject it. On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., warned that Trump’s version was even more extreme than those of his GOP predecessors. ""Previously, under President Reagan and the Bush administrations, this policy applied only to family planning funding,"" Shaheen said. ""But under President Trump's order, it applies to every program that falls under global health assistance. This means that it puts at risk 15 times more funding and millions more women and families."" We compared the policies of all four Republican presidents and found that on paper, Shaheen’s number is largely correct, but there’s uncertainty surrounding Trump’s policy. The first Mexico City policy Reagan administration officials announced a new U.S. family planning policy at the 1984 International Conference on Population in Mexico City. It required all nongovernmental organizations, foreign and domestic, receiving aid from the United States to agree that they would not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other countries. This applied to U.S. family planning programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development. President George H. W. Bush left the Reagan policy in place. President Bill Clinton rescinded it, and President George W. Bush brought it back with the focus still on family planning through the U.S. Agency for International Development. But in 2003, Bush expanded the reach of the policy, instructing the secretary of state to apply it to ""all assistance for voluntary population planning."" Even as he did that, Bush excluded a number of groups and programs. ""Such organizations do not include multilateral organizations that are associations of governments,"" Bush wrote. ""This policy shall not apply to foreign assistance furnished pursuant to the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003."" With those words, Bush exempted some of the largest and highest profile global health programs. Those programs, experts told us, dwarfed any other programs at the State Department that Bush’s order might have affected. Trump’s presidential memorandum to reinstate the Mexico City policy is broader. In addition to the head of USAID, it is addressed to the departments of State and Health and Human Services. ""I direct the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to the extent allowable by law, to implement a plan to extend the requirements of the reinstated Memorandum to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies."" The operative phrase is ""global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies."" Trump’s order provides no exceptions. It’s unclear exactly how the Trump administration will interpret those words. We asked the White House press office for details and did not hear back. The experts we reached told us they too were in the dark. Comparing family planning and global health programs The pipeline of family planning and global health programs is more complicated than you might expect. Governments agencies often contract with nonprofits which in turn subcontract out to smaller organizations in countries around the world. Jennifer Kates, director of global health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said this makes it difficult to know the real impact of the order. ""Not all of the organizations that directly or indirectly receive U.S. government global health support carry out the activities prohibited by the policy, but figuring that out will take some time,"" Kates told us. However, Kates said that in theory, Trump’s policy puts a lot more funding on the line. ""Whereas family planning assistance represents about $600 million per year, global health funding overall is close to $10 billion,"" Kates said. Data gathered by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation allows us to tease out exactly which programs Bush exempted from the Mexico City policy, but that Trump has included (see this IHME data graphic). Remember, Bush kept money for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis off the table, as well as U.S. support for programs involving multiple nations, the big ones being the Global Fund and United Nations programs. Add all of those up and you get $9.7 billion. That’s about 15 times as much money as the United States spends on family planning, which was the core program affected across all three previous Republican administrations. Shaheen said millions of women and families might be affected. In spending, the single largest global health program is the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. According to the latest report to Congress, PEPFAR treated 9.5 million people in 2015, at a cost of about $6.8 billion. Trump, along with his Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, has voiced support for PEPFAR. But in theory, since many HIV/AIDS programs include a family planning component, the programs that touch those people might be affected by Trump’s Mexico City policy. If the policy extends to malaria programs, the numbers climb dramatically. In 2015, American dollars protected over 16 million people with indoor spraying and many more through the distribution of nearly 30 million bed nets. Our ruling Shaheen said Trump’s Mexico City policy has a much broader reach compared to past Republican presidents, putting 15 times as much money ""at risk,"" as well as millions of women and families. On paper, the numbers support that comparison. Previous Republican administrations applied the abortion funding policy to family planning programs, which amount today to about $600 million. Trump included all global health spending, which is nearly $10 billion. There is no question Trump’s approach is broader and that millions more people could be affected. The White House has not clarified how it will interpret the policy. Its reach could be much narrower than the full scope of global programs, but Shaheen included the caveat that certain dollars were ""at risk,"" not that they definitely would be affected. It’s also true that organizations facing funding cuts could drop activities related to abortion and the funds would continue to flow. Claim: "Jeanne Shaheen Says Donald Trump's abortion rule ""puts at risk 15 times more funding and millions more women and families ... than previous similar policies by Republican presidents."

Answer:
"Shaheen said Trump’s Mexico City policy has a much broader reach compared to past Republican presidents, putting 15 times as much money ""at risk,"" as well as millions of women and families. On paper, the numbers support that comparison. Previous Republican administrations applied the abortion funding policy to family planning programs, which amount today to about $600 million. Trump included all global health spending, which is nearly $10 billion. There is no question Trump’s approach is broader and that millions more people could be affected. The White House has not clarified how it will interpret the policy. Its reach could be much narrower than the full scope of global programs, but Shaheen included the caveat that certain dollars were ""at risk,"" not that they definitely would be affected. It’s also true that organizations facing funding cuts could drop activities related to abortion and the funds would continue to flow. Given what we know so far.