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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The 18,000-square-foot (1,700-square-meter) clinic in Fairview Heights, 12 miles (19 kilometers) east of St. Louis, will provide abortion services as well as family planning when it opens in mid-October, Planned Parenthood officials said at a news conference Wednesday. “While health care access in Missouri continues to hang on by a thread, Illinois is well-positioned to serve as a health care hub in the region,” said Yamelsie Rodriguez, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri. Planned Parenthood has been battling Missouri’s health department for months to try and keep open its St. Louis clinic. The state has refused to renew its license to perform abortions, citing concerns that include “failed abortions” that required additional surgeries. Missouri’s Administrative Hearing Commission is deciding the fate of the St. Louis clinic. Meanwhile, Missouri women have been increasingly getting abortions at the Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Illinois, another St. Louis suburb. Deputy Director Alison Dreith said 58 percent of the abortions performed at the Hope Clinic through August of this year involved Missouri women, and 37 percent were women from Illinois. Missouri is among several conservative states to pass new restrictions on abortions in the hope that the increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court will eventually overturn Roe v. Wade. Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation in May banning abortions at or beyond eight weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest. A federal judge in August temporarily blocked implementation of the law until the legal challenge plays out in court, which could take several months. During an annual inspection of the St. Louis clinic in March, Missouri health investigators cited numerous concerns, including reports of failed abortions. Planned Parenthood said it has already addressed those concerns and defended its clinic. It claims the state is using the licensing process as an excuse to stop abortions. The state initially let the clinic’s abortion license lapse at the end of May, then announced more definitively in June that it would not renew the license. The clinic remains open while the hearing commission decides its fate. Planned Parenthood officials say construction of the Fairview Heights clinic began last year, but details weren’t released until near completion to avoid protesters and potential construction delays. Claim: New abortion clinic being built in Illinois, near St. Louis.

Output: Planned Parenthood has quietly been building a new abortion clinic in Illinois, just across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, as women concerned about the uncertain future of Missouri’s sole abortion clinic flock across the state line.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The release does not mention cost. The FDA evaluates drugs without consideration of cost, so it’s understandable that they wouldn’t comment on it — and that’s why we’re rating this Not Applicable. But let’s be real here: The value of a new drug is a function not just of how well it works, but its cost-effectiveness. So we look forward to the day when any news release about a new drug — even one from the FDA — will include some mention of cost in its message. This release gives the preliminary results from a single study of 310 patients. Because the drug is experimental, long-term results haven’t been studied. Of the 310 patients enrolled in the lone trial upon which the approval is based, 14.8 percent showed some shrinkage of tumors during the assessment period lasting from 2.1 to about 13.8 months. For a subset of patients who were classified as having a positive response to PD-L1 expression, the response was 26 percent. As noted above, tumor shrinkage doesn’t always lead to improvements in survival or quality of life. It is a surrogate endpoint — a substitute — for the main outcome which is survival. Although this drug looks promising, to be fully transparent about its benefits as currently known, the release should have explained this. As noted in the “Summary,” another larger study is underway to assess the drug’s impact on extending life and improving quality of life. The release includes a description of side effects of this treatment. The most common ones included fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, urinary tract infection, fever (pyrexia) and constipation. The release also mentions that patients taking the drug have an increased risk of infection and serious side effects that are “immune-mediated.” We would have liked a bit more context on what this term means for patients. The release outlines that this is the very first clinical trial of this compound for safety and efficacy, and under which regulatory paths the drug was assessed, including “breakthrough therapy designation, priority review status and accelerated approval.” We’re giving this release the benefit of the doubt and rating it Satisfactory for its bare bones description of the trial (and since we already addressed the lack of long-term survival data in the “Benefits” section.) As it stands, the results from the small trial were preliminary and short-term and did not reflect long-term survival. We would have liked to see a reference or link to the completed trial where one could look at the results to assess independently or learn more about the outcomes. We think the release should have provided more data on the patient demographics, the treatment regimen (dosing amount and schedule) as well as the range in tumor reduction. There is no disease mongering. This release describes the approval of a new drug by a regulatory agency, but we’d still like to know who sponsored the study that’s the basis for the approval. It’s not enough to state who markets the drug. The release does not give us very much information about alternatives. These patients had already received other therapy and their cancer had recurred, so it is implied that they had no other alternatives. But this isn’t stated very clearly. We can assume (and it seems evident) that the platinum-based therapy that the patients didn’t respond to initially is the usual treatment. The FDA’s approval of a drug clears the way for the drug sponsor to scale up production and begin marketing and selling the product. (The FDA doesn’t state this explicitly but it can be inferred.) A NYT article said the drug would be available in about two months. The release clearly states this product is first of its kind for this type of cancer. We found no unjustifiable language. Claim: FDA approves new, targeted treatment for bladder cancer

Output: The Food and Drug Administration approved a new immunotherapy drug that acts as a “checkpoint” inhibitor in patients whose bladder cancer (urothelial carcinoma) has not responded to other chemotherapy. The drug, atezolizumab (marketed as Tecentriq), showed effectiveness in about 14 percent of 310 patients in a very preliminary study. The release notes that the trial measured tumor shrinkage as the main outcome. It didn’t note, as a NYT article did, and important for this type of trial, that it is unknown whether the treatment makes a difference in survival. A larger study is being done to examine this. Whether it makes a difference in quality of life is also important and will presumably be examined in the larger trial. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimates 76,960 new cases of bladder cancer and 16,390 deaths from this disease in 2016. This approval of a new drug for treating bladder cancer is part of a wider area of research into immunotherapy, in which drugs target mechanisms of the human immune response. Patients with the PD-L1 protein highly expressed in their tumors appear to be responding best to the drug. This drug is an example of targeted chemotherapy which is becoming more important as treatments can be fine-tuned to the cancers of individual patients. In patients with intractable cancers, immunotherapy appears to offer some new hope while also bringing sobering questions about affordability and disparity of access by income. The drugs are typically very expensive — with some estimates putting the treatment cost for a single patient as high as $1 million. When the FDA gives a compound a “breakthrough” designation, some physicians and patients can misunderstand what that means. That’s a topic recently explored in this post.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission agreed unanimously to give the bison to the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation to further the conservation of the country’s last herd of wild, purebred buffalo. The tribe was chosen instead of a proposal to distribute the iconic, hump-shouldered creatures to six organizations across five states, including New York’s Bronx and Queens zoos. “It would be a great celebration at Fort Peck to make this happen,” said Becky Dockter, chief legal counsel for Montana’s wildlife agency. The bison, now in confinement at a Montana ranch owned by media mogul Ted Turner, were part of a government experiment that quarantined the animals to produce a band free of the cattle disease brucellosis, which is carried by roughly half of Yellowstone’s buffalo. The success of the experiment, documented in a scientific study issued earlier this year, gave Montana assurance that relocating the bison would not pose a risk of transmitting brucellosis to commercial livestock. The ailment can cause cows to miscarry. Commissioners adopted the revised plan after calls by buffalo advocates not to send the animals out of state when Indian lands in Montana were suitable and where tribal biologists have already proven they can manage bison, said Andrea Jones, spokeswoman for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. In 2012, the Fort Peck tribes saw the historic return of 63 Yellowstone buffalo to their reservation under a plan crafted by state, federal and tribal bison managers. Montana Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Lawrence Wetsit said the tribes would be open to working with the state on possibly distributing offspring of the brucellosis-free bison to zoos and other proposed recipients like the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. “I’m sure the tribes would be willing to work closely with the state for a percentage of the offspring to go and replenish other herds,” he said. The New York zoos could not immediately be reached for comment on the plan, which must be approved by the head of the state’s wildlife agency. It is also subject to review for adverse environmental impacts. The agreement with the Turner ranch requires the bison be relocated by the end of the year. Claim: Montana to give bison from Yellowstone to tribes instead of zoos.


Output: An Indian reservation in Montana will receive 145 bison from Yellowstone National Park that were quarantined to create a herd free of a disease that threatens ranchers’ cattle, according to a government plan approved on Thursday.