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 Q]: Paragraph: Brattleboro Retreat Board Chair Elizabeth Catlin said the organization is ready to work “with all willing partners” to help it achieve financial stability. The board began considering its options last week when the state of Vermont rejected a $2 million request for additional funding. “In recent years, the Brattleboro Retreat’s board and its management team have taken a number of creative, cost-conscious steps to reshape and modernize hospital operations while meeting the rising tide of soaring labor costs,” said Catlin’s statement. “The Brattleboro Retreat’s quality of care, even with these financial pressures, continues to be excellent.”   The facility serves more than half the people in Vermont who need psychiatric care and provides all of the child and adolescent psychiatric care in the state. It also provides addiction services including inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation, and treatment services for those who get Suboxone, a prescription medication used to treat opioid addictions. If it closes, the letter said that would mean finding services for 2,500 inpatients annually as well as filling new gaps for Suboxone treatment services, residential programs for children and meeting other critical health needs. On Sunday, Vermont Human Services Secretary Michael Smith said he had rejected a request for an additional $2 million in funding from the retreat. That request would be added to a financial package valued at an estimated $16 million for new beds and a recent rate increase valued at an estimated $3.5 million per year. Smith said he rejected the request in part because he believes it would constitute a taxpayer bailout of financial miscalculations by Brattleboro Retreat’s management. But Josephson said the state wasn’t paying it enough to care for the patients the state wants cared for. On Friday, Josephson sent a letter Friday to Smith and Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, that said the facility cannot continue operating without more support from the state. He said the board had authorized him to begin planning for the sale or closure of the retreat “in the very near future.” Claim: Psych hospital’s financial woes won’t stop services, for now.
[EX A]: Officials at Vermont’s largest private psychiatric hospital said Monday they are dedicated to providing quality mental health care to patients amid the possibility of the facility shuttering or being forced into a sale.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The Indian government had earlier put a hold on exports of hydroxychloroquine as well as on the pain reliever, paracetamol, saying it had to meet its internal demand. But Trump spoke to Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the weekend seeking supplies and later hinted that India may face retaliation. “It has been decided that India would licence paracetamol and HCQ in appropriate quantities to all our neighbouring countries who are dependent on our capabilities,” said Indian foreign ministry spokesman, Anurag Srivastava. “We will also be supplying these essential drugs to some nations who have been particularly badly affected by the pandemic,” he said. Claim: India will allow some exports of anti-malaria drug after Trump appeal.
[EX A]: India will allow some exports of the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, the foreign ministry said on Tuesday, after U.S. President Donald Trump urged New Delhi to release supplies of the drug seen as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "The article includes price information for the drug’s likely competitor, Plavix–about $4 per day, a significant cost for a drug that is taken daily, perhaps for a lifetime. The article correctly indicates that the price of Plavix is likely to come down when it goes generic in four years. The article properly includes speculation that the pricing of prasugrel may be a key factor in its adoption, should it be approved. The reporter includes considerable data about several key clinical endpoints of both benefits and harms, in two cases using both absolute numbers of patients and percentage increase or descrease. The reporter gets extra points for including ""number needed to treat""–the number of people who would have  clinically significant outcomes for each 1,000 treated with the drug. The story is built around the question of the drugs’ risks vs. benefits. Data about harms are mentioned early and often, and described in detail. A direct comparision of the fatal bleeding rates for the two drugs would have been additionally useful. The New England Journal of Medicine article is based on results of a Phase III trial that appears to meet all the important criteria for significance: the study is prospective, the study group is large, the patients were randomized, the treatments double-blinded, the clinical endpoints signficant. While there is no placebo group, this was likely decided for ethical reasons, so all patients in the study would receive at least current best-practice treatment. The article assigns proper crediblity to the study, which to appear in NEJM has received rigorous peer review. The article does nothing to exaggerate the risk of death or the consequences of heart attacks, strokes or cardiovascular disease deaths. It allows the outcome figures to speak for themselves. The article quotes five experts in cardiology from different institutions, providing greater balance and context than just one or two experts would. In each case the relationship of the souce to the study and/or its funders is revealed. The considerable conflicts of interest of the investigators are made very clear. The article makes clear that prasugrel is being developed as an option to Plavix, and that Plavix with aspirin is currently best-practice treatment. The article makes clear that the drug prasugrel is not FDA approved and that its approval is uncertain. The article makes clear that this is a drug that is very similar to Plavix, and that it may be marginally more effective. No claims of novelty are made. The companies’ joint press release, an enthusiastic announcement about the drug’s benefits, bears little resemblance to this story." Claim: Blood drug trades benefit for risk
[EX A]:
This article, reporting on findings of a published paper on the experimental blood-thinning drug prasugrel, is an excellent example of a thorough, intelligent and disinterested report on study findings. Specifically:  It makes clear that, while the findings can be interpreted favorably, FDA approval is not guaranteed It makes clear that the benefits and risks need to be carefully compared and are controversial. It does so using both study data and commentary from a number of knowledable experts. In each case the relationship of the source to the study, both professional and financial, is made clear. The article places the controverial findings in the context of market competition, which is the proper backdrop for a study of what is essentially a copycat drug. It’s worth noting that this excellent five-star story was reported in fewer than 1,000 words. It was done by a medium-market newspaper, with a reporter filing under deadline on the road. It’s also worth noting that this same newspaper announced 60 staff cuts this week. We hope it doesn’t affect future health care news coverage.