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.

Q: "While these studies examined prostate cancer mortality rates and treatment outcomes, monetary costs are an important part of the larger conversation about the value of screening. There are significant financial costs associated with population-wide screenings, along with the follow-up diagnostic procedures and treatments that these studies suggest are of little benefit. The reporter should have referenced costs of screening and treatments at least briefly. There are two studies involved here, each with its own methodology, outcomes and limitations. Under the circumstances the news report describes the findings adequately, using a broad brush. The report states that the U.S. study found no decline in death risk in the screened population, while the European study showed a 20 percent reduced risk of death–yet it also documented considerable overtreatment. The reporter gets points for using the always valuable ""number needed to treat"" measure to describe the European findings: 48 additional men would need to be treated to prevent one death from prostate cancer. The story focuses in part on the harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The story is based on results of two high-quality clinical trials, and it describes the methodologies sufficiently. The story does an excellent job of laying out the caveats very early: that the results won’t end the controversy over the value of prostate cancer screening; and that the studies continue and may provide clearer answers in the future. The reporter gets extra points for mentioning too that the two studies aren’t directly comparable. The report does nothing to exaggerate the effects of prostate cancer or its treatments. The reporter includes comments from the lead authors of the two studies, the author of a related editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, and a physician representing the American Cancer Society. The story adequately explains that screening options include the PSA blood test and the digital rectal exam. The story also refers to the options for treatment after a cancer is identified, indicating that ""there’s no agreement on the best treatment approach""–watchful waiting, surgery, hormone therapy or radiation. The wide use of the PSA test is implied throughout the story. No claims are made for the novelty of the screening techniques or the findings of the study. The story does not appear to draw directly from press releases of NIH, the Washington University School of Medicine, or others publicizing the results."

A: Studies don’t end prostate cancer test controversy
****
Q: In November 2018, a Grand Rapids, Michigan woman who needed a heart transplant due to complications from chemotherapy was turned down by a Spectrum Health medical committee due to lack of funds:Martin’s son, Alex Britt, said she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005 and the chemotherapy treatment, while curing her cancer, damaged her heart to the extent that she requires a transplant and had to leave her job on disability. Britt said she walked dogs and would pet-sit to raise funds.Martin said she was supposed to have a procedure Monday for an assistive device to help sustain her while waiting for a new heart. At the time, Martin had already raised $4,600 on GoFundMe for her prior medical bills.Britt set up a new GoFundMe page to raise the additional $10,000 needed to cover the cost of the immunosuppressive drugs. The medical center reportedly would not consider Martin for a heart transplant without her being able to pay for the drugs.The letter to Hedda Martin reportedly said, in part:Your medical situation was presented to our multidisciplinary heart transplant committee on Tuesday, October 20, 2018. The decision made by the committee is that you are not a candidate at this time for a heart transplant due to needing a more secure financial plan for immunosuppressive medication coverage. The Committee is recommending a fundraising effort of $10,000.The story went viral when it was shared by Rep-Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York):Insurance groups are recommending GoFundMe as official policy – where customers can die if they can’t raise the goal in time – but sure, single payer healthcare is unreasonable.h/t @DanRiffle pic.twitter.com/zetPW0MgDd— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) November 24, 2018The story is true. Spectrum Health acknowledged the letter in a lengthy statement on their official website, although the organization stopped short of discussing Martin’s specific circumstances:It is important for patients to understand the long-term commitment they are making when accepting an organ donation. For this reason, we strive to ensure each patient is the best match so the donation contributes to a renewed life.Each transplant candidate is evaluated by our highly-skilled multidisciplinary team of physicians, nurses, social workers, clinical ethicists, dieticians and other experts. Transplant eligibility is a complex process. It requires consideration of a multitude of factors based on established best practice standards used by transplant centers across the country. Physical health, psychological and social well-being, and financial resources are among the factors considered for each patient. The ability to pay for post-transplant care and life-long immunosuppression medications is essential to increase the likelihood of a successful transplant and longevity of the transplant recipient. We help patients understand the long-term health implications of a transplant along with their total financial commitment, such as post-transplant medication expenses paid to pharmacies of their choice.Martin’s GoFundMe has raised more than enough to cover the costs of the immunosuppressant medication she needs, but her story is far from unusual. At least a third of the money raised on GoFundMe in 2017 was to help with medical issues, because health care costs in the United States are so high:It’s become a go-to way for people in need to help pay their doctors. Medical fundraisers now account for 1 in 3 of the website’s campaigns, and they bring in more money than any other GoFundMe category, said GoFundMe CEO Rob Solomon.“In the old paradigm you would give $20 to somebody who needed help,” Solomon said. “In the new paradigm, you’ll give $20, you’ll share that and that could turn into 10, 20, 50 or 100 people doing that. So, the $20 could turn in hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.”Since at least 2017, a majority of Americans have listed access to affordable healthcare as one of their most pressing concerns.

A: "A medical committee withheld a heart transplant from a woman saying that she needed to have at least $10,000 for immunosuppressant medication and suggested ""a fundraising effort."
****
Q: Adolescents appear to spread SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19, as quickly and effectively as some adults, according to a study of more than 65,000 individuals in South Korea conducted during the onset of the 2020 pandemic. In the context of this study, news reports making such claims are mostly accurate. However, there are some important caveats to note when interpreting the broader implications of the findings. After the first case of COVID-19 in South Korea was discovered on Jan. 20, 2020, the nation adopted a “rigorous contact-tracing program” to track its spread throughout the population. Between the first reported case and March 27, researchers with the U.S. and Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracked more than 5,700 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 by analyzing GPS, credit card transactions, and closed-circuit television. More than 59,000 people had come into contact with the original “index patients,” allowing researchers to determine how likely an infected individual was to transmit the virus to those living in their home and beyond. While researchers did not set out to characterize transmission rates specific to age groups, the claim is a byproduct of the work. Children between 10 and 19 years of age were shown to have a higher transmission rate within their households than younger children and were thus able to spread the virus as efficiently as, and in some cases at higher rates than, adults. More specifically, this age group had a transmission rate of over 18% within their own household, which is much higher than adults between the ages of 20 and 59 (ranging 7 and 14.7%). On the other hand, adolescents were much less likely to spread the disease to others outside of their home, and though children under 10 were found to transmit less than adults, they are still believed to contribute to community transmission. It is unclear why teens and tweens appear to be transmitting the disease more than adults, though the researchers speculate that it may be due to how children were socializing during the study period. “We also found the highest COVID-19 rate for household contacts of school-aged children, and the lowest for household contacts of children [up to nine years] in the middle of school closure. Despite [the] closure of their schools, these children might have interacted with each other, although we do not have data to support that hypothesis,” wrote the authors.

A:
Teens and tweens transmit SARS-CoV-2 quicker and more efficiently than adults. 
****