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: Kudos! This story reported on the costs of the drug Lucentis as well as the less expensive Avastin. The story provided quantitative information about the possible impact on vision. But we wish there information about any measurement of  the patients’ perspective on whether they are functioning better after receiving this treatment versus standard treatment While the story did include the common side effect of the drug in the study, there were other potentially important complications that were not mentioned. The story mentioned that the results reported on were from a phase III clinical trial; it included information about the number of affected eyes included in the study, and the impact on vision. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Several experts in the field were quoted in this story. In presenting the outcome of the study, the story mentioned in passing treatments currently used for treating diabetic macular edema. The story also mentioned the existence of another drug, Avastin, which was reported as working the same way as the study medication. (A more accurate description comparing Avastin and Lucentis is that they contain the nearly identical active ingredient but the production methods are a little different.) It would have been nice to mention that there is an on-going trial comparing the effectiveness of these two medications for the treatment of macular degeneration (not the condition which was the disease in the study reported on.) The story was crystal clear that the drug reported on, Lucentis, is available as it is FDA approved for another condition; the story also mentioned that it is not yet FDA approved for treatment of diabetic macular edema. The story was very clear that this was a new use for a medication that is already on the market. The story provided some insight that the company underwriting the costs of this study had a very similar but less expensive drug which was FDA approved for other use. It would have been useful to include a little more information comparing the two medications. It might also have been nice to include some information about how the drug studied works as compared to laser treatment, the current standard. Does not appear to rely on a press release.
Example Output: A Genentech Eye Treatment Is Found to Help Prevent Vision Loss in Diabetics

Example Input: Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis issued statements saying they will vote against Dourson to serve as head of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Environmentalists and Senate Democrats have vehemently opposed Dourson, a toxicologist with close ties to the chemical industry. That means only one more Republican “no” vote would likely be needed to torpedo his nomination. Moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told reporters Thursday she is also leaning against supporting Dourson, but has not yet made a final decision. The White House and EPA did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday or Thursday. Despite the fact he hasn’t yet been confirmed by the Senate, Dourson has already been working at the agency as a senior adviser to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The agency’s press office did not respond to emails seeking how much he is being paid. The Associated Press reported in September that Dourson has for years accepted payments for criticizing studies that raised concerns about the safety of his clients’ products, according to a review of financial records and his published work. Past corporate clients of Dourson and of a research group he ran include Dow Chemical Co., Koch Industries Inc. and Chevron Corp. His research has also been underwritten by industry trade and lobbying groups representing the makers of plastics, pesticides, processed foods and cigarettes. Burr and Tillis, both of whom are considered reliably pro-business conservatives, cited Dourson’s past work and worries among their home-state constituents about tainted drinking water in opposing his nomination. “Over the last several weeks, Senator Tillis has done his due diligence in reviewing Mr. Dourson’s body of work,” said a statement from Tillis’ office. “Senator Tillis still has serious concerns about his record and cannot support his nomination.” Marine veterans and their families blame decades-old contamination of wells at a North Carolina base with solvents and dry-cleaning chemicals for infant deaths and serious health problems that include cancer. More recently, concerns have been raised about undisclosed discharges of chemicals used to manufacture Teflon and GoreTex into the Cape Fear River, a source of municipal drinking water for Wilmington and other southeastern North Carolina communities. Dourson worked at the EPA for more than a decade, leaving in 1994 as the manager at a lab that assessed the health risks of exposure to chemicals. The following year, he founded Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, a private toxicity evaluation nonprofit organization that tests chemicals and produces reports on which chemicals are hazardous in what quantities. Dourson’s views toward industry are consistent with others Trump has selected as top federal regulators. Among them is Pruitt, who in March overruled the findings of his agency’s own scientists to reverse an effort to ban chlorpyrifos, one of the nation’s most widely used pesticides. Court records show Dourson and his work have often been called on when his corporate clients are seeking to fend off lawsuits. DuPont was accused of polluting a West Virginia town with Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, a chemical that the company’s internal tests had long ago concluded was toxic. Corporate officials discussed hiring Dourson as part of a strategy to defend themselves. Dourson led a team that found in 2002 that PFOA levels up to 150 parts per billion were safe, a level higher than was found in testing of 188 private wells and springs. That was also well above the 1 part per billion that Dupont’s own scientists had concluded could be considered safe years before. The EPA now says that only 70 parts per trillion of PFOA are acceptable — or only 0.05 percent of what Dourson’s team said was safe. DuPont and a former subsidiary, Chemours Co., later paid $761 million to settle 3,550 lawsuits stemming from its use of the chemical. Chemours is the company whose spills of a chemical called GenX, a replacement for PFOA, are now at issue in North Carolina’s Cape Fear River. “I will not be supporting the nomination of Michael Dourson,” said Burr, the state’s senior senator. “With his record and our state’s history of contamination at Camp Lejeune as well as the current GenX water issues in Wilmington, I am not confident he is the best choice for our country.” The stand was quickly praised by environmental advocacy groups that rarely find common ground with the two Tarheel Republicans. “No one who has spent decades arguing on behalf of the chemical industry for weaker safety standards should be charged with reviewing chemicals for the EPA,” said Scott Faber, a senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. “It would be like putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department.” ___ Follow Associated Press environmental reporter Michael Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck
Example Output: Trump EPA nominee opposed by GOP senators from NC.

Example Input: "Every Republican presidential candidate opposes Obamacare, but Ohio Gov. John Kasich stands out for being the only one who took advantage of the program’s Medicaid expansion option. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wasn’t going to let that choice go unnoticed. Bush touted his opposition to expansion in Florida during a debate in South Carolina. ""The (Florida) governor was supportive of doing what John did,"" Bush said Feb. 13. ""So was the Florida Senate. A committed speaker of the House asked me to go as a private citizen to make the case against the expansion. I did, and it wasn't expanded there."" To which Kasich shot back, ""When Jeb was governor -- his first four years as governor -- his Medicaid program grew twice as fast as mine. Okay? It's just a fact."" We can’t resolve which man is more fiscally responsible, but we can compare Medicaid spending trends. A decade and a half separates the periods -- 1999-2003 for Florida and 2011-15 for Ohio -- but with due regard for the vast change in circumstances, the numbers can speak for themselves. Kasich’s campaign provided Medicaid spending numbers for both Ohio and Florida and we confirmed them with independent sources in both states. The spending amounts, in millions of dollars, include both federal and state contributions to Medicaid. Ohio 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Change overall $17,681 $18,401 $18,857 $20,859 $23,467 32.7% Yearly change 4.1% 2.5% 10.6% 12.5% Florida 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 $6,947 $7,764 $8,901 $10,220 $11,437 64.6% Yearly change 11.8% 14.6% 14.8% 11.9% (In millions of dollars) Source: Florida State University; State of Ohio You can’t compare the amounts directly because inflation changes the value of the dollars across the decades. But in terms of growth, Medicaid spending did rise twice as quickly under Bush than it has more recently under Kasich. But we wouldn’t advise drawing simple conclusions from this. The factors behind the numbers Florida’s Medicaid budget did rise rapidly during Bush’s first term, largely due to more spending on long-term care. An Urban Institute report in 2002 said that as Bush took office, Florida had ""a full-blown crisis"" in nursing homes. ""Chronic staffing shortages led to an erosion in quality of care, which in turn led to lawsuits that resulted in extremely large awards for complainants and skyrocketing liability insurance rates for the industry,"" the report said. Larry Polivka now heads the Claude Pepper Center, a public policy analysis group at Florida State University. In the early 2000s, he served on an advisory committee set up to suggest ways to fix problems in the long-term care system. Bush adopted many of the recommendations, such as more nursing home staffing, and they were not cheap. ""Bush increased funding in the long-term care part of the budget very substantially,"" Polivka told us. A 2002 assessment by the U.S. Health and Human Services Department echoed Polivka’s point. ""In January 2001, Gov. Jeb Bush partly unveiled his ‘elder-friendly’ initiative, which called for significant increases in funding for nursing homes and nursing home quality of care reform,"" according to the report, which noted Bush signed the changes into law in May 2001. Polivka said the state has a higher proportion of senior citizens than other states and anything done with nursing homes and other long-term care services will have a substantial impact on spending. Polivka said it didn’t help that the state also went through a brief recession in 2001. Unemployment rose over 2 percentage points in 2002. When the economy goes down, more people turn to Medicaid. Still, Polivka said the main driver in Florida centered on nursing home care, community-based care and at-home care. In Ohio, 15 years later, the economy helped the state. Unemployment dropped by nearly half, from 9.2 percent down to 4.7 percent. That eased demand on Medicaid. But the state did many things directly to rein in Medicaid spending. Amy Rohling McGee, president of the Health Policy Institute of Ohio, told us that Kasich focused on chronic illnesses, like asthma, and long-term care. McGee said administration policies played a significant role in trimming the rise in Medicaid costs, but she also noted that other trends were at play. ""It’s hard to tease out what reduces health care spending growth,"" McGee said. ""It’s likely a combination of factors. Experts around the country noted that healthcare spending was rising at a slower pace in recent years. Part of that was a post-recession slow down. Part of it might have been the Affordable Care Act. But changes in Ohio also made a difference here."" Our ruling Kasich said that Florida’s Medicaid spending in the first four years of the Bush administration went up twice as quickly as they did during Kasich’s first four years in Ohio. The spending numbers bear that out. However, comparisons across very different states at very different times should be used with caution. Large national trends in health care inflation and the economy played a significant role in Medicaid spending in both states. Bush in Florida faced higher health care inflation and an economic slump. Ohio saw an easing of health care spending and an improving labor market. Still, budget and policy decisions by the two governors had an impact on Medicaid spending. The statement is accurate but it needs additional information."
Example Output:
When Jeb (Bush) was governor, his first four years as governor, his Medicaid program grew twice as fast as mine.