TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: Democrats on a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform released a cache of internal Juul emails and other documents that committee staff described as early attempts to “enter schools and convey its messaging directly to teenage children.”   Juul’s use of social media influencers to promote its vaping devices in the years after it launched in 2015 also came under scrutiny. James Monsees, Juul’s co-founder and chief product officer, told the committee that the company’s target audience from the beginning has been adult cigarette smokers. Among efforts cited in the Juul documents released were a $134,000 payment to set up a five-week “holistic health education” summer camp at a Maryland charter school, recruiting children from third through 12th grades, and offering $10,000 to schools using the company’s “youth prevention and education” programs for students, including those caught using e-cigarette products. “You don’t think that sounds strange at all?” Representative Katie Hill, a Democrat, asked Juul’s chief administrative officer, Ashley Gould. “All of these educational efforts were intended to keep youth from using the product,” Gould responded. When Juul realized how the school involvement could be perceived as negative, “we stopped the program,” she said. In a statement after the hearing, Juul said the $134,000 donation was to “facilitate already-existing community outreach and youth-prevention programs,” and said the company “did not have any direct interaction with the students.”  Several committee members said Juul’s initiatives appeared similar to past efforts by the tobacco industry to reach young people under the guise of smoking prevention programs. Gould said Juul, which is 35 percent owned by Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc (MO.N), halted its program last year once it became aware of the tobacco industry’s past moves. Caleb Mintz, 17, a New York city high school student, testified at a separate hearing on Wednesday that a Juul representative came to his school as part of an educational program on mental health and addiction last year. He said in an interview Thursday that students received “mixed messages” about the product, being told it was safe but not to buy it. Mintz said after the hearing that the Juul presentation seemed to be “playing to the side of teens as rebellious. When a teen is told not to do something, they’re more likely to do it.”    Members of the committee also quizzed Gould and Monsees over the use of social media influencers to promote Juul’s vaping devices. Company executives early on agreed that “younger consumers age 25 to 34 was going to be the target of our initial campaign,” Monsees said. “They would be more receptive to new technology solutions,” such as the Juul device. Amid an enormous uptick in teenage use of e-cigarettes in 2018 — a 78% increase among high school students from 2017 to 2018, according to federal data — Juul said it ended all social media advertising last fall. Juul also pulled many flavored nicotine pods, except mint, menthol and tobacco, from retail stores, which Monsees said represented more than half of the company’s sales at that time. Claim: U.S. lawmakers grill e-cigarette maker Juul over efforts targeted at schoolchildren.

SOLUTION: E-cigarette maker Juul Labs Inc funded a “holistic health education” camp as part of efforts to market directly to school-aged children, members of a U.S. congressional panel said on Thursday, citing internal company documents.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Gov. Brian Kemp said proposed changes to former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act would give individuals and families less expensive coverage options, a particular benefit for those who don’t qualify for federal subsidies to cover premiums. “They’re going to work to reduce costs, make health care more accessible and have better quality in our state,” Kemp said in a statement. Critics say it would drive up insurance costs for older and sicker people. Kemp also wants to offer subsidized coverage to a fraction of Georgia’s uninsured poor if they worked or went to school for 80 or more hours a month. Kemp’s administration projects the expansion would cover 50,000 people, far less than the 400,000 uninsured Georgians who might be covered by the Medicaid expansion originally envisioned by the overhaul. This second proposal, aimed at people earning incomes of up to 100% of the federal poverty level, echoes those made by other states. Federal officials have rejected some similar partial expansions. But it’s the first plan, under which Georgia would take over the federal insurance marketplace and the associated funding that goes with it, that’s drawing national notice. The state would make those federal subsidies available to people who buy health plans that don’t provide the full array of benefits that the Affordable Care Act requires. Passed in 2010, Obama’s signature health care law extended insurance coverage to millions of Americans by expanding Medicaid and subsidizing premiums for individuals and families who make up to four times the federal poverty level. The law — also known as “Obamacare” — allows states to seek waivers from the federal government to change certain provisions, but only if they adhere to strict rules. The Trump administration has loosened those rules, and Kemp’s plan includes three approaches promoted by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in November 2018. Health policy experts say that change would drive up ACA premiums by drawing healthier people to less expensive, skimpier insurance plans. That would leave the ACA with a sicker patient pool. Under Kemp’s plan, Georgia residents would be required to bypass the central HealthCare.gov website to sign up for insurance. Instead, the state would redirect them to a list of approved brokers and insurers where consumers would be able to compare ACA-compliant plans side by side with plans that don’t meet ACA requirements. All plans would have to continue covering preexisting conditions. In addition to the current gold, silver and bronze level plans, Georgia would let insurers offer a new lower tier of benefits, called copper level, which would cover only about half the cost of projected expenses. The current lowest level of bronze covers about 60% of costs. The state says copper level premiums are expected to be 17% lower than bronze level premiums, on average. Georgia also would let insurers offer disease management plans aimed at helping patients manage a particular high-cost disease such as diabetes or HIV and AIDS. State officials would set an overall cap on its own subsidies at $255 million. There is no cap under the ACA, although the state doesn’t project its spending will come anywhere near the cap, even though it projects enrollment will increase by more than 37,000. The governor’s office estimates that the availability of subsidies for pared-down health plans would only increase “Obamacare” premiums by a little more than 1%. State officials say that amount would be more than offset by its intention to pay a portion of insurance companies’ costs to treat their sickest patients, a relatively small group that incurs the biggest bills. The so-called reinsurance program would allow the companies to lower monthly premiums for all customers. Twelve other states have received approval for reinsurance programs, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. State officials expect to hear by August whether Georgia has permission to implement its plans. Claim: Georgia’s Kemp submits bid to remake health insurance market.

SOLUTION: Georgia’s Republican governor on Monday submitted twin plans requesting that President Donald Trump’s administration allow changes to federal government subsidies for health insurance.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The researcher, He Jiankui of Shenzhen, revealed the pregnancy Wednesday while making his first public comments about his controversial work at an international conference in Hong Kong. He claims to have altered the DNA of twin girls born earlier this month to try to make them resistant to infection with the AIDS virus. Mainstream scientists have condemned the experiment, and universities and government groups are investigating. The second pregnancy is in a very early stage and needs more time to be monitored to see if it will last, He said. Leading scientists said there are now even more reasons to worry, and more questions than answers, after He’s talk. The leader of the conference called the experiment “irresponsible” and evidence that the scientific community had failed to regulate itself to prevent premature efforts to alter DNA. Altering DNA before or at the time of conception is highly controversial because the changes can be inherited and might harm other genes. It’s banned in some countries including the United States except for lab research. He defended his choice of HIV, rather than a fatal inherited disease, as a test case for gene editing, and insisted the girls could benefit from it. “They need this protection since a vaccine is not available,” He said. Scientists weren’t buying it. “This is a truly unacceptable development,” said Jennifer Doudna, a University of California-Berkeley scientist and one of the inventors of the CRISPR gene-editing tool that He said he used. “I’m grateful that he appeared today, but I don’t think that we heard answers. We still need to understand the motivation for this.” “I feel more disturbed now,” said David Liu of Harvard and MIT’s Broad Institute, and inventor of a variation of the gene-editing tool. “It’s an appalling example of what not to do about a promising technology that has great potential to benefit society. I hope it never happens again.” There is no independent confirmation of He’s claim and he has not yet published in any scientific journal where it would be vetted by experts. At the conference, He failed or refused to answer many questions including who paid for his work, how he ensured that participants understood potential risks and benefits, and why he kept his work secret until after it was done. After He spoke, David Baltimore, a Nobel laureate from the California Institute of Technology and a leader of the conference, said He’s work “would still be considered irresponsible” because it did not meet criteria many scientists agreed on several years ago before gene editing could be considered. “I personally don’t think that it was medically necessary. The choice of the diseases that we heard discussions about earlier today are much more pressing” than trying to prevent HIV infection this way, he said. If gene editing is ever allowed, many scientists have said it should be reserved to treat and prevent serious inherited disorders with no good alternatives, such as sickle cell anemia and Huntington’s disease. HIV is not an appropriate candidate because there are already safe ways to prevent transmission, and if contracted it can be kept under control with medications, researchers said. The case shows “there has been a failure of self-regulation by the scientific community” and said the conference committee would meet and issue a statement on Thursday about the future of the field, Baltimore said. Before He’s talk, Dr. George Daley, Harvard Medical School’s dean and one of the conference organizers, warned against a backlash to gene editing because of He’s experiment. Just because the first case may have been a misstep “should in no way, I think, lead us to stick our heads in the sand and not consider the very, very positive aspects that could come forth by a more responsible pathway,” Daley said. “Scientists who go rogue ... it carries a deep, deep cost to the scientific community,” Daley said. Shortly after his talk, He canceled a planned appearance in a Thursday session on embryo gene editing, according to the Royal Society, one of the conference organizers. Regulators have been swift to condemn the experiment as unethical and unscientific. The National Health Commission has ordered local officials in Guangdong province to investigate He’s actions, and his employer, Southern University of Science and Technology of China, is investigating as well. On Tuesday, Qiu Renzong of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences criticized the decision to let He speak at the conference, saying the claim “should not be on our agenda” until it has been reviewed by independent experts. Whether He violated reproductive medicine laws in China has been unclear; Qui contends that it did, but said, “the problem is, there’s no penalty.” The U.S. National Institutes of Health said Wednesday there should be international intervention. “Without such limits, the world will face the serious risk of a deluge of similarly ill-considered and unethical projects,” the agency said in a statement. Meanwhile, more American scientists said they had contact with He and were aware of or suspected what he was doing. Dr. Matthew Porteus, a genetics researcher at Stanford University, where He did postdoctoral research, said He told him in February that he intended to try human gene editing. Porteus said he discouraged He and told him “that it was irresponsible, that he could risk the entire field of gene editing by doing this in a cavalier fashion.” Dr. William Hurlbut, a Stanford ethicist, said he has “spent many hours” talking with He over the last two years about situations where gene editing might be appropriate. “I knew his early work. I knew where he was heading,” Hurlbut said. When he saw He four or five weeks ago, He did not say he had tried or achieved pregnancy with edited embryos but “I strongly suspected” it, Hurlbut said. “I disagree with the notion of stepping out of the general consensus of the scientific community,” Hurlbut said. If the science is not considered ready or safe enough, “it’s going to create misunderstanding, discordance and distrust.” Jennifer Doudna and David Liu are paid by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which also supports AP’s Health & Science Department. ___ Marilynn Marchione can be followed on Twitter: @MMarchioneAP ___ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Another gene-edited baby may be on the way, scientist says.

SOLUTION:
A Chinese researcher who claims to have helped make the world’s first genetically edited babies says a second pregnancy may be underway.