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 St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that officials are urging at-risk people, such as recreational drug users and the homeless, to get vaccinated. The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services said Wednesday that the state has recorded 414 cases in 35 counties since September 2017, mostly in the southeast part of the state. Only about 10 cases per year were reported before then. Health officials say the virus has sent 233 people to the hospital and caused two deaths. Hepatitis A is a viral infection. It usually spreads when a person ingests the virus from objects, food or drinks contaminated by undetected amounts of stool from an infected person. ___ Information from: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, http://www.stltoday.com Claim: Health officials raise concerns about hepatitis A outbreak.

Ex Output:
Officials are raising concerns that a hepatitis A outbreak in Missouri could worsen if the liver disease spreads to urban areas.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Phusion Projects LLC, which is based in Chicago, agreed not to sell caffeinated alcoholic drinks, agreed not to promote binge drinking or other misuses of alcohol, and accepted marketing limits designed to keep people under 21 from buying alcoholic products. Among these limits are a ban on promoting flavored malt beverages on school or college property except at licensed retailers, and not using models or actors under age 25 or who appear to be under age 21 in its advertising. Phusion also agreed to pay $400,000 to the regulators as part of the settlement. The danger of mixing caffeine and alcohol was spotlighted in 2010 when some college students were hospitalized for alcohol poisoning after drinking alcoholic energy drinks. Phusion that year removed the caffeine and other stimulants from beverages, including Four Loko, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned the company and rivals that “blackout in a can” drinks combining alcohol and caffeine were unsafe. “Alcoholic energy drinks are dangerous - especially for the teenagers and young adults they target,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. “Today’s agreement ensures that one company will no longer market a dangerous product to youth.”  In the settlement, Phusion denied the regulators’ allegations and that it violated any laws, including state laws governing consumer protection and trade practices. “We consider this agreement a practical way to move forward and an opportunity to highlight our continued commitment to ensuring that our products are consumed safely and responsibly only by adults 21 and over,” President Jim Sloan said in a statement. “Phusion continues to believe, however, as do many people throughout the world, that the combination of alcohol and caffeine can be consumed safely and responsibly.” Claim: Maker of Four Loko flavored malt liquor accepts marketing limits.

Ex Output:
The maker of Four Loko has agreed with 20 U.S. state attorneys general and the city of San Francisco to a series of reforms to resolve allegations that it improperly marketed flavored malt beverages to young people and encouraged alcohol abuse.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Seniors, if you’re struggling to find a doctor that takes Medicare, U.S. Rep. Tom Price has diagnosed your problem. Doctors won’t take patients covered by the federal health insurance program for seniors because Medicare pays them less than what the care actually costs, Price said in a recent op-ed in the Boston Herald. ""Already, nearly one in three primary care doctors are forced to limit the number of Medicare patients they see,"" said Price, who worked as an orthopedic surgeon. We thought the Roswell Republican’s number was worth a closer look. If there is a problem, it could get worse Feb. 29. That’s when Medicare will cut doctor pay by some 27 percent, unless Congress does something about it. Medicare calculates how much it pays doctors according to a special formula set up in 1997 to keep the federal deficit in check. In 2002, that formula gave doctors a pay cut, but physician backlash was so bad that lawmakers have put off reductions ever since. Each time Congress puts off the problem, the cost of fixing it grows. We asked Price spokesman Ryan Murphy for more information on the congressman’s Medicare figure. He said it was confirmed by a May 2010 survey by the American Medical Association, a group that represents doctors’ interests and promotes medicine and public health. The AMA’s online survey of more than 9,000 physicians found that 31 percent of primary care doctors ""restrict"" the number of Medicare patients in their practice. Some of these doctors don’t accept new Medicare patients, and only treat the ones they already have. Others have stopped treating them at all. Some 83 percent said they did so because Medicare payment rates are too low, the AMA survey said. And 82 percent said they made the move because they were concerned about the threat of future payment cuts. We asked the AMA for the poll’s methodology and found it has a major shortcoming. It wasn’t scientific. Also, the AMA is a powerful lobbying group with its own set of interests. We therefore sought out data from independent sources that took a scientific approach. The data we found was not strictly comparable to the AMA’s, but it did tell us that the findings of the physicians group did not clash with other research. For instance, there’s a 2008 survey by the Center for Studying Health System Change, which provides research used by the federal government and policymakers on both sides of the aisle. The center conducted a nationally representative mail survey of 4,700 physicians. It found that among primary care physicians, 37 percent said they accept some or no new Medicare patients. Of those, more than 56 percent said that inadequate reimbursements were a moderately important or very important reason why. About 48 percent of those who restricted how many Medicare patients they took on said a moderately important or very important reason why was that their practices were already at capacity. There’s also 2009 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which found that some 19 percent of primary care physicians did not accept any new Medicare patients. This number is a lot lower than the AMA’s figure, but it doesn’t mean the doctors group is incorrect. About 10 percent of the CDC’s respondents said they did not know if they accepted new Medicare patients. Also, the data did not specify whether the doctors who accept new ones limit how many they bring on. On its face, the AMA data is not unreasonable. None of the data we reviewed expressly contradicts the finding that 31 percent of primary care doctors ""restrict"" the number of Medicare patients in their practice. Furthermore, data from the Center for Studying Health System Change appear to support the AMA’s finding. So, is Dr. Price right? Are nearly one in three primary care doctors ""forced to limit the number of Medicare patients they see""? The congressman’s number seems sensible, but his language is overheated. It’s not clear that the physicians who drop or restrict Medicare were ""forced"" to do so because of declining reimbursements or red tape. Nearly half of the primary care physicians responding to the Center for Studying Health System Change survey said one of the reasons they accept so few new Medicare patients is that their practices are full. We recommend Price give his feverish rhetoric an aspirin. And it wouldn’t hurt if he got a second or third opinion on the American Medical Association’s data. Price earns a ." Claim: [N]early one in three primary care doctors are forced to limit the number of Medicare patients they see.

Ex Output:

Congressman's claim about Medicare mostly rings true