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.

Example Input: The story does include a discussion of price, reporting that a fluoride varnish treatment can cost $23 to $55, while a filling can cost $86 to $606. That’s enough to be rated Satisfactory. However, the story also should have stated that those numbers aren’t a head-to-head comparison, since the varnish treatment must be repeated many times over many years–which would add up. In fact, a cost-effectiveness analysis done by one of the quoted experts concluded the “Caries Management System” he advocates costs almost $1,800 for every cavity or lost tooth prevented. While the story includes links to some studies that report specific results, the only number reported in the story is a reduction in adult tooth fillings of 30 to 50 percent. But without any absolute numbers, this number isn’t useful. Is it a cavity a year? A cavity a decade? The story refers to people at “high risk” for cavities, but does not define what that term means. Without some anchoring in absolute numbers, all readers are left with is a vague sense that preventive treatment is “better” for some people, without pinning down how much better or for whom. Fluoride for dental health has been extensively studied for decades and is considered safe, so we’ll file this rating as not applicable to the story. But, as some dentists might point out, there is an argument to be made for discussing one known–though minor–risk: Some people living in areas with naturally high levels of fluoride in their water may experience tooth discoloration or other issues if they are given additional fluoride treatment. The story portrays the evidence for fluoride treatments as clear and convincing, when there are actually just a few studies, and a lot of expert opinion. That’s not to say the experts quoted in the story are wrong, but the story elevates beliefs to the level of evidence-based conclusions. Cavities in adults can cause serious health problems if left untreated, and any new effective treatment or trends in this area is worthy of press coverage. However, the studies discussed in the story focused on a relatively small group of people with unusually high risk of tooth decay–and so these results may not apply to the adult population at large, which this piece implies. The story quotes a number of sources discussing this trend in dentistry, instead of just relying on one dentist. But the piece would be more balanced had it included at least one source pointing out that some of the techniques advocated in the story could be overkill or wasteful for many people who are at just average risk for tooth decay. As the piece was written, all the sources are very rosy about more aggressive preventive dental care. We also found via an internet search that source John Featherstone has accepted consultation fees from dental companies that make products for these purposes. However, since he wasn’t specifically endorsing one of these products in this story, we’ll give this a pass. The story does not quantify the benefits of these new preventive treatments, or similar approaches, so it fails to give readers a useful comparison with standard dental care or advice for most adults–such as fluoride toothpastes, community water fluoridation, flossing, and mouthwashes. It is clear that the treatments mentioned in the story are widely available, and we were pleased to see the story went a step further and let us know how insurance impacts availability. The story reports that the concepts are not new, and that fluoride varnishes have normally been the purview of pediatric dentistry, but are now catching on among adult dentists. However, it never really explains why practice would be changing now–did research spur this change? There is a reference to “more effective preventive techniques,” but it’s not clear what that means, and how a reader might act on that. This piece doesn’t appear to rely on a news release; the reporter interviewed a number of experts and referred to several publications.
Example Output: No-Drill Dentistry: Fluoride Treatments Can Prevent Cavities In Adults

Example Input: According to the Maine Center for Disease Control, the number of syphilis cases reported in the state increased from 48 in 2016 to 84 last year. The number of national syphilis cases increased by 18 percent in between 2015 and 2016. Maine Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman tells the Bangor Daily News the department isn’t sure why syphilis has increased in recent years. Portland Public Health Center medical director Dr. Christina DeMatteo believes opioid use and waning concerns about HIV have contributed to attitudes about having unprotected sex. Public health advocates say budget cuts resulting in changes in prevention and treatment have also affected rates in the state. ___ Information from: Bangor Daily News, http://www.bangordailynews.com
Example Output: Maine sees increase in reported syphilis cases.

Example Input: Since the beginning of the U.S. coronavirus outbreak in January 2020, Americans relied on hospital patient data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to develop emergency plans that aimed to lessen the chances of deadly bottlenecks in the country’s health care system during the pandemic. The CDC’s system for collecting COVID-19 data from more than 25,000 health care systems nationwide, called the National Healthcare Safety Network, compiled reports that served to help local politicians, epidemiologists, teachers, and everyone else make responsible decisions to curb the virus’ spread. But in mid-July 2020, tweets and news reports alleged that — under the direction of U.S. President Donald Trump — the federal government changed what had become the standard data-collecting system during the global health crisis and stripped the CDC of its role managing  COVID-19 hospital information. Numerous readers contacted Snopes to investigate the legitimacy of such a claim, which was first reported by The New York Times on July 14, 2020. First, we searched for any evidence of the above-mentioned order by the Trump administration — that his administration announced a change for where on-the-ground health care staff send their observations on staffing and supply shortages, as well as data on testing, bed capacity in intensive care units, ventilators in use, and COVID-19 cases and deaths. We found a 13-page memo titled “COVID-19 Guidance for Hospital Reporting and FAQs” on the website of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department (HHS), of which the CDC is an arm, which was updated on July 10, 2020. Here’s a summary of some of the document’s main points: In other words, yes, the federal government in July 2020 —  as the country’s number of coronavirus cases surpassed 3.4 million — modified the guidelines under which medical facilities report COVID-19 patient data and the pandemic’s impact on them. Per the memo, the White House planned to rely on the centralized system — and that system alone — for how it would divvy up supplies such as personal protective gear and potential COVID-19 treatments going forward. In a special bulletin on July 13, 2020, the American Hospital Association, which represents thousands of medical systems nationwide, urged all hospitals to follow the new reporting guidelines and also stressed the federal government’s announcement that they will be used for distributing resources. Next, we considered perhaps the most controversial aspect to the viral claim: that the change initiated by the Trump administration eliminated the CDC’s previous role as overseer of COVID-19 hospital information. To that point, the memo explicitly reads: “As of July 15, 2020, hospitals should no longer report the COVID-19 information in this document to the National Healthcare Safety Network site.” HHS spokesman Michael R. Caputo elaborated in The New York Times’ story, saying the CDC “will certainly participate in this streamlined all-of-government response. They will simply no longer control it.” The details of the CDC’s new role were unclear as of this writing, and that alarmed public health officials, researchers, and critics of the Trump administration who believed the new system would give the federal government greater control over what Americans know — and don’t know — about COVID-19’s toll on communities. That group’s concerns were largely related to unresolved questions over if, or to what extent, the HHS-run system would release the COVID-19 hospital data to the public like the CDC had done — and whether or not the HHS was going to report the hospitals’ observations accurately. For instance, Thomas File, president of the Infections Diseases Society of America, said in a statement: Collecting and reporting public health data is a core function of the CDC, for which the agency has the necessary trained experts and infrastructure. Placing medical data collection outside of the leadership of public health experts could severely weaken the quality and availability of data, add an additional burden to already overwhelmed hospitals and add a new challenge to the U.S. pandemic response.
Example Output:
In July 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's administration established new guidelines for hospitals to report COVID-19 patient information that eliminates the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the leader of data collection.