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: Since this story doesn’t make claims about efficacy, costs don’t seem applicable. We give this story a satisfactory score, but the story could have helped readers understand why measuring surrogate markers such as homocysteine levels can be different than tracking true outcomes such as heart attack or stroke. Here, the surrogate endpoint (homocysteine levels) “improved,” but the real endpoint – heart attack and stroke – did not. There is no discussion of any harms associated with consumption of vitamin B supplements, although such harms would occur from vitamin B intake unlike that studied, so this gets a satisfactory grade. Two of the three studies referred to in the journal article are detailed; a brief reference is given for the third. In addition to the discussion of the studies, a quote was pulled from an editorial in the journal that published the studies. No other treatment options for lowering risk of heart attacks or strokes are mentioned. It’s clear from the story that B vitamins have been in use for some time by many people for these purposes. It’s clear from the story that B vitamins have been in use for some time by many people for these purposes. We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.

Answer: Study: Heart attacks not cut by B vitamins


Question: The decision by Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman in Norman, Oklahoma, came in the first case to go to trial out of 2,700 nationally by states, counties and cities seeking to hold drug companies responsible for the deadly epidemic. Balkman reduced the amount he had awarded in August by $107 million after agreeing with New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J that he had made a math error. J&J said it will appeal, and that the award and finding of liability were “neither supported by the facts nor the law.”  A spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said that office is reviewing the decision and will formally respond within the next few days. Opioids were involved in almost 400,000 overdose deaths from 1999 to 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Following a non-jury trial, Balkman ruled in August that Oklahoma had proven that J&J engaged in misleading marketing about the benefits of painkillers, and that their addictive risks caused a public nuisance in the form of the opioid crisis. Hunter had sought to have J&J pay $17 billion to help fund addiction treatment and other services to repair damage from the opioid epidemic over the next 30 years. Balkman, however, awarded only enough money for one year of programs, saying Oklahoma failed to support its claims regarding the need to abate the epidemic in future years. Following the August ruling, Oklahoma asked Balkman for permission to return to his courtroom annually to prove those costs, but Balkman on Friday maintained his prior ruling. J&J, meanwhile, argued that it deserved a $355 million credit, reflecting pre-trial settlements by the drugmakers Purdue Pharma LP and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.  Balkman concluded on Friday that state law did not allow such credits. Last month, J&J and four other companies proposed a $48 billion settlement framework to resolve all of the opioid cases they face, with J&J paying $4 billion. Lawyers for the local governments have opposed the proposal. If approved, the settlement would let J&J resolve some of the thousands of product liability lawsuits it faces. The company also faces litigation over whether its baby powder causes cancer, a claim it denies.

Answer: Oklahoma judge reduces Johnson & Johnson opioid payout to $465 million.


Question: Democratic state Sen. Tom Holland of Baldwin City and Republican Sen. Molly Baumgardner of Louisburg outlined the details of their bill during a recent Statehouse news conference, the Lawrence Journal-World reports. They’ve already drafted it and filed it so that it will be introduced when lawmakers open their next annual session Jan. 13. The measure  would strengthen a state law that requires health insurance companies to cover mental health services in line with how they cover medical care. Holland and Baumgardner say people suffering from mental illness and their families have discovered that insurers can throw up obstacles to getting services, such as requiring prior approval or not authorizing coverage unless someone has attempted suicide first. The bill would rename the state’s mental health coverage parity law after Kristi L. Bennett, a Lenexa woman who overdosed on antidepressant medication eight months ago, family members said, after being told that her outpatient treatment wouldn’t be covered unless she had tried to commit suicide first. “Imagine if an individual — family member, neighbor, or co-worker — with coronary artery blockage was told by their insurance company that they wouldn’t cover stent surgery until they first suffered a heart attack. That seems irrational,” Baumgardner said. “But that is what’s happening with individuals facing a mental health crisis.”  This bill would require insurance plans to provide coverage without requiring prior authorization or a review by the insurance company when a health care provider deems treatment medically necessary. Four other Democratic senators have joined Holland and Baumgardner as sponsors. The measure also would require that when no in-network treatment facility is immediately available, the insurer must provide exceptions to ensure coverage within 24 hours. “It is imperative that Kansas lawmakers begin knocking down those barriers that would deny life-saving services and treatments to those Kansans desperately crying out for help in a time of crisis,” Holland said.

Answer:
Kansas lawmakers want stronger law on mental health coverage.