TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: Though modest, it was the first such price drop in 45 years, according to nonpartisan economic experts at the federal Department of Health and Human Services, who deliver an annual report on the nation’s health care spending. The price drop was for retail pharmacy prescriptions, not medications administered in hospitals or doctor’s offices. HHS experts said the last time retail prescription drug prices declined was in 1973, when they went down by 0.2%. The price drop comes amid questionable prospects for major legislation to curb prescription drug costs. Nonetheless, it was a nugget of decent news in a sobering, broader report on rising U.S. health care spending. The HHS report found that spending on prescription medicines at pharmacies accounted for 9% of the total $3.6 trillion national health care tab in 2018. Total U.S. health care spending grew by 4.6% last year, averaging $11,172 per person. In the real world, U.S. spending is concentrated on the sickest patients, with 5% of the population accounting for half of costs. Because of strong overall economic growth last year, health care spending as a share of the national economy declined slightly, from 17.9% in 2017 to 17.7%, the report found. Legislation pending in Congress to curb drug costs would mainly benefit older people on Medicare, who are the biggest consumers of medicines. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is forging ahead with a floor vote next week on her bill authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices for the costliest drugs, including insulin. Under her bill, private insurance plans would be able to get Medicare’s prices as well. But President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are solidly opposed to Medicare negotiations. Instead Trump is backing a bipartisan Senate bill that would require drugmakers to pay rebates to Medicare if they hike prices above inflation. As a candidate Trump had called for allowing Medicare to negotiate directly. Both bills would cap what Medicare recipients must pay annually in out-of-pocket costs for their prescriptions. The HHS report made no forecast of future prescription drug prices. It’s unclear if the 1% price decline seen last year may be the beginning of a sustained trend or was merely a temporary pullback by drug companies getting pummeled by Trump and lawmakers of both parties. Thursday’s report found that nearly 9 out of 10 prescriptions dispensed are for generic drugs, which puts downward pressure on prices. Even though prices of brand-name drugs increased more moderately, they still accounted for most of the spending on prescriptions — nearly 79%. The government’s findings on prices for brand-name drugs dovetailed with  an analysis earlier this year by The Associated Press. In the first seven months of 2019, drugmakers raised list prices for brand-name prescription medicines by a median of 5%, the AP found. That was down from about 9% or 10% over those months the prior four years. The AP’s findings suggest that an easing in drug prices may continue this year. Reducing prescription drug costs remains one of the top priorities for consumers. The White House claims that Trump has already delivered historic price cuts, but a recent Gallup poll found that 66% of adults believe the president has made little or no progress. The government study was published online by the journal Health Affairs. Claim: US report: Prescription drug prices down slightly last year.

SOLUTION: Prices for prescription drugs edged down by 1% last year, a rare result driven by declines for generics and slow, low growth in the cost of brand-name medications, the government said Thursday.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The story does not give any estimate of the cost of Doppler ultrasound examinations. The story clearly states the reduction in fetal death rates the review authors calculated by combining the results of the studies ithey looked at. It reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did). This reporting of absolute (as opposed to relative) risk reduction is a strong point of the story since it conveys to readers that while the intervention did improve outcomes, the underlying risk is small. We only wish, however, that the story had cited the Number Needed to Test that was included in the study – 203 would need to be tested in order to find one case of fetal distress that would otherwise not have been seen using other routine exams. The story notes that there has been concern that the use of Doppler ultrasound might increase unnecessary interventions, including cesarean section deliveries in cases where it is not actually needed. It says the studies indicated that Doppler ultrasound appeared to lead to better decisions about cesarean sections and inductions of labor. The story explains that this report is a review of other studies. It also points out some shortcomings in the underlying studies. The story also includes a comment from one of the study authors that since the technique is established in current practice it is unlikely that there will be future studies of the use of the technology in high-risk pregnancies. The story clearly states that the evidence on the use of Doppler ultrasound applies only to high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence the examinations should be done in low-risk pregnancies. There is no information in the story that appears to come from an independent source. Comments from experts in the field would have helped put the authors’ comments into perspective. The story says other types of testing, including electronic fetal-heart monitoring, may also be done during high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler is an established technique used to monitor high-risk pregnancies. The story notes that Doppler ultrasound is an established technology and that most of the studies reviewed were done in the 1990s. The story does not appear to rely solely on a news release. It says the lead researcher was interviewed. Claim: Ultrasound may cut deaths in high-risk pregnancies

SOLUTION: This story clearly explains that a new review of the available evidence from published trials backs the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor high-risk pregnancies. Notably, the story reports the absolute risk calculation of fetal or newborn deaths (1.7 percent among women who did not receive ultrasound monitoring vs. 1.2 percent among those who did), rather than trumpeting a large reduction in relative risk. By including the absolute risk numbers, the story helps readers understand both that the test appears to reduce the death rate and, importantly, that the overall risk of fetal or newborn death in developed nations is very small, thus putting the results in perspective. This story also pointed out that there is some uncertainty about the findings because of concerns about the quality of the underlying studies including in the review. What’s more, it highlights the point that the studies included only women who had high-risk pregnancies and that there is no evidence to suggest the use of Doppler ultrasound to monitor low-risk pregnancies. The story would have been ranked as satisfactory on all criteria if it had reported the typical cost of Doppler ultrasound monitoring and included an independent source in addition to the lead author of the review. When there is concern about potential problems with a pregnancy, Doppler ultrasound is a commonly recommended test used to help make decisions about cesarean section, induced labor or other interventions; thus misuse of the test could lead to inappropriate interventions.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: More than 40 percent of girls have received at least one dose of the new vaccine that protects against a virus that causes cervical and other cancers, according to the report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than half have received a booster shot that protects against tetanus, whooping cough and diphtheria, the survey of 20,000 teens aged 13 to 17 said. “We can see that more parents of adolescents are electing to protect their children from serious diseases such as pertussis (whooping cough), meningitis, and cervical cancer but there is clear room for improvement in our system’s ability to reach this age group,” the CDC’s Dr. Anne Schuchat said. She pointed to recent outbreaks of whooping cough, especially in California, where state health officials say seven infants too young to be vaccinated have died and 3,000 cases have been reported. “Young infants are most vulnerable to serious complications from pertussis and can be infected by older siblings, parents or other caretakers,” Schuchat said in a statement. The survey found that 56 percent of teens aged 13 to 17 had at least one dose of tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine, known as Tdap, an increase of 15 points since 2008. It found 54 percent of teens got at least one dose of meningococcal conjugate vaccine, up 12 points. This vaccine is aimed at teenagers who will go to new high schools or colleges and risk getting infected by the sometimes fatal bacteria in dorms or when they begin dating. The survey showed 44 percent of girls had received at least one dose of human papillomavirus, or HPV vaccine, an increase of seven percentage points. Only 27 percent of girls got all three doses of the vaccine, up nine points from 2008. HPV is the main cause of cervical cancer and also can cause throat, anal and penile cancers. “Completing the three-dose HPV vaccine series is very important to ensure protection against cervical cancer,” Schuchat said. “Visits for immunization can be a great opportunity to address other important preventive issues that all teens need.”   Two HPV vaccines are licensed — Cervarix from GlaxoSmithKline and Gardasil from Merck & Co.   Novartis and Sanofi make vaccines against meningitis and several companies make Tdap vaccines. Claim: More U.S. teens get vaccinated, CDC finds.

SOLUTION:
More U.S. teens are getting recommended vaccines against certain cancers, meningitis and infectious diseases, government researchers reported on Thursday.