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: The news release includes information about costs. We would have liked a little more context. The release states: “The costs associated with home infusion were also consistently lower than services provided in a health care facility, with savings ranging between $1,928 and $2,974 per course of treatment.” We need to know what percentage of savings that is per course of treatment. If the whole course costs $100,000, then saving $1,928 is a pretty small percentage. If the whole course is $10,000, than a savings of $1,928 looks more substantial. We found the news release skimmed over giving crucial numbers and metrics for benefits. Separate from the cost benefit to home infusion versus hospital or clinic infusion, the release should have given us some numbers for safety. Here is what the release stated (emphasis ours): “The research showed that patients receiving intravenous therapy at home had as good or better clinical outcomes as those patients who received the same therapy in a traditional health care setting. In addition, patients overwhelmingly preferred receiving their infusion therapies at home, reporting fewer disruptions in personal schedules and responsibilities. We need numbers to demonstrate how “as good” the clinical outcomes were. We need numbers to represent “overwhelmingly preferred.” By what percentage did what number of patients demonstrate preference? This is where the release could have taken some quantitative data from the study. The word “harms” does not appear in the news release. During intravenous infusions there are complications that may arise. The release does not mention harm, even to dismiss the probability as rare. The study being reported is a systematic literature review that only considered 13 prior studies. The release does not address the limitations of a literature review or give us the total number of patients represented by the 13 studies. Only 5 of the 13 studies used in the analysis addressed outcomes. One had no comparison group (“However, no adjustment for confounders was performed, and higher OPAT success rates were likely due to purposeful selection of younger, healthier patients for OPAT therapy,” according to the published study). In another study, “IPAT patients were selected from a time period during which OPAT was not available for any patients, minimizing selection bias by the matching fact.” In any case, less than half of the studies looked at outcome data and those that did involved different diseases from different time periods, some had control groups and some did not. We don’t think the evidence is strong enough to suggest outcomes were improved. The bias inherent in CVS employees culling the studies is also concerning. A better description of the review’s search and selection process may have helped allay any concerns about studies being cherry-picked. There is no disease mongering. The release is clear that the study was done by the CVS Health Research Institute. Since this is a news release from a profit-making company that operates directly to sell services under study, we hope the readers quickly understand there is an inherent conflict. This is the equivalent of a Coca Cola study about the benefits of drinking their product. The release explains the alternatives of clinic or hospital infusion compared to home infusion. Home infusion services are widely available. Their reimbursement is not widely available. The release says “clinical outcomes and quality of care have not previously been systematically evaluated.” The release doesn’t rely on any unreasonable or unjustified language. However, we do not think the news release proves the words used in the headline that say “Home Infusion Care Improves Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life While Reducing Overall Costs.” Based on a literature review, which does not randomize people into apples-to-apples comparison, you cannot claim to show better outcomes. The release does not offer any quantified benefits to support medical outcomes and doesn’t provide quantified information about quality of life improvement. The fact that patients prefer home infusion to travel to a clinic is not by itself a proof that their lives have been improved. As we wrote in the benefits section above — we are not given numbers to prove by what amount patients prefer home infusion. Claim: CVS Health Research Institute Study Shows that Home Infusion Care Improves Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life While Reducing Overall Costs
[EX A]: This news release describes the cost savings and safety of home infusion services from 13 previously published studies compared with infusion services at a clinic or hospital. Home infusion appears safe and clinically effective while saving money in the studies reviewed, but the release does not address limits in the review. We aren’t given any numbers to back up the claims that clinical outcomes were equal and that patients preferred the home setting. The release notes that CVS has a home infusion business–Coram–so at least they make this transparent. We applaud CVS for attempting to quantify the cost savings and other potential benefits of the service — and the claim that there are advantages are likely valid — but some context/background from other, independent studies would be helpful. Besides the lack of quantification, the release doesn’t delve into the potential risks from using the home infusion service. Treatments for chronic diseases, which often require drugs administered through infusion, are one of the fastest growing costs in the US health care system. If patients can be served at home, rather than in outpatient clinics or hospitals, it saves both money and time. But outcomes studies, which compare outcomes and safety between locations, are essential to judging whether home infusion is equal to clinic or hospital infusion. This release does not go far enough with numbers to quantify benefits and risks. We also see that CVS has a conflict of interest, because they have a business arm, Coram, that sells home infusion services. It appears this release (and study) are getting attention just as Congress is “discussing how to implement a comprehensive home infusion benefit for Medicare beneficiaries.”

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "State Sen. Frederica Wilson, a Miami Gardens Democrat running for the congressional seat now held by Kendrick Meek, is making an unusual boast about her accomplishments as a school board member: She says she introduced a ban on ""dirty dancing. ""Here is what she says on her campaign Web site: ""As a member of the Miami-Dade County School Board, Senator Wilson introduced reading labs and an African-American history curriculum into our schools, as well as a dirty-dancing ban in our community. ""She reiterated that claim in a March 9, 2009 press release announcing her campaign and on her Facebook page -- so there's no doubt she's against kids engaging in nasty booty moves. Pelvic thrusts aren't usually mentioned in congressional campaigns, so we jumped at the chance to explore whether she truly had introduced a ban. First, some background on dirty dancing. To many, the phrase conjurs up memories of the 1987 movie starring Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey. Remember the story? Grey plays a good girl nicknamed ""Baby"" who is on a family vacation at a Catskills resort. She stumbles upon a room where the working-class crew -- including Johnny, a beer-swigging-shirt-unbuttoned dance instructor played by Swayze -- are grinding their scantily clad bodies wrapped around each other in Do You Love Me. Johnny teaches Baby to dance -- among other, ahem, lessons -- and they fall in love. She learns some choreographed dance moves that are more of the gaze-into-each-other's-eyes variety than the make-your-grandma-blush type. In one famous scene, he lifts her by her hips as she is dripping wet in a lake. A decade later, the Miami-Dade school board took up the topic. There was no mention of the movie in the articles we found about the mid 1990s discussions, but there was plenty of harrumphing about kids dancing in sexually suggestive ways. ""I've seen it in little tiny elementary school children. I couldn't take it, "" Wilson said in a Nov. 19, 1995, Miami Herald article which stated that she asked school administrators to hold a meeting on the topic. ""I don't think it sets a good standard for our district. We cannot allow (the dancing kids) to degrade the school district or themselves."" In a 1997 op-ed, school board member Wilson said she was considering introducing a ban. ""It has been called 'dirty dancing,' but it's really nothing more than simulated sexual intercourse. Outrageously, too many folks involved with Dade County's public schools -- including teachers, administrators, and parents who ought to know better -- call it 'cheerleading,' 'marching,' or other types of school-sponsored student performance. Whatever it's called, it's vulgar and degrading. It has no place in our schools, on our playgrounds, or in our students' lives. So, imagine my disgust and dismay when I marched in Dade's Martin Luther King Day Parade earlier this year and saw Dade high school cheerleaders bumping and grinding their way down Martin Luther King Boulevard."" In a July 1997 news article, she was quoted saying, ""I've seen horrendous behavior. I saw a band member bend over and a female majorette come from behind and simulate actual intercourse. I almost passed out, but people in the stands were applauding. ""Rather than calling it a ""dirty dancing ban,"" it was known as ""Guideline 25B: Student dance performances and/or productions: Procedures for promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment. ""The board's explanation of the rule said that cheerleading, dance and band performances at events, performances or educational settings ""are essential to the establishment and maintenance of an atmosphere that fosters cultural and artistic exchanges. However the board recognizes that certain modes of dance are inappropriate, unsuited for immature audiences and may offend the community's sense of propriety rather than foster appropriate conduct that is consistent with school board rules and state statutes."" School board documents said the rule prohibited performances that depicted ""actual or simulated sexual intercourse (normal or deviate), masturbation, excretory functions and actual lewd exhibition of genitalia."" It's clear from news coverage and school board minutes that Wilson was the driving force behind the ban. School board minutes for the July 9, 1997, meeting state that Wilson proposed the rulemaking. The motion passed unanimously. On Aug. 27, 1997, the school board voted again in favor of the proposal. But there's still a bit of exaggeration in her statement: Wilson described this as a ban ""in our community"" when it strictly related to school-related groups or performances. She told us that was a reasonable description because ""the dirty dancing ban was on school bands and majorettes in the community. We have a lot of parades -- the MLK parade, different half time shows at football games in the community. I witnessed it -- a lot of forward-thrusting of the pelvic bone."" Clearly Wilson introduced the dirty dancing ban approved by the school board in 1997 and we don't doubt that school activities now have less forward-thrusting of the pelvic bone. But her claim that the ban would apply ""in our community"" is a little misleading. Some people might think her ban applied to the entire county, not just the schools." Claim: "Frederica Wilson Says she introduced a ban on ""dirty dancing."
[EX A]: Frederica Wilson says she banned dirty dancing

[EX Q]: Paragraph: KIRO-TV reports  the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department noted the child who died there also suffered from underlying health conditions. “Sadly, flu strains currently in circulation this season have hit the young very hard,” said Nigel Turner, division director for the Communicable Disease Control Division. Adrian Pierce told KIRO-7 her grandson Santana Patterson, 12, was diagnosed with influenza at an urgent care clinic, because his doctor was booked up with appointments for flu symptoms. “They said you have the flu, but they caught this flu early,” Patterson said. “I’m going to be OK, because they gave me some medicine and I’m going to be better.” Doctors in Pierce County say a B-strain of the flu virus was the cause of death for the child there, and they say it’s the same strain which also lead to the death of a King County child last week. It was the first child flu-related death there in ten years. “This is the second pediatric influenza death, and we are seeing a lot of influenza in children, which is unusual this time of year and reflects the strain of influenza that we’re seeing in the community this season,” said Turner. Doctors say getting the flu shot should protect you against the new flu strain. They say the vaccine widens the circle of protection for those around you. Claim: Flu blamed for death of another child in Washington state.
[EX A]:
A Pierce County child under the age of five died from flu-related complications according to the Tacoma Pierce Health Department, and doctors say it’s the same strain of virus that led to the death of a child in King County last week.