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: Though modest, it was the first such price drop in 45 years, according to nonpartisan economic experts at the federal Department of Health and Human Services, who deliver an annual report on the nation’s health care spending. The price drop was for retail pharmacy prescriptions, not medications administered in hospitals or doctor’s offices. HHS experts said the last time retail prescription drug prices declined was in 1973, when they went down by 0.2%. The price drop comes amid questionable prospects for major legislation to curb prescription drug costs. Nonetheless, it was a nugget of decent news in a sobering, broader report on rising U.S. health care spending. The HHS report found that spending on prescription medicines at pharmacies accounted for 9% of the total $3.6 trillion national health care tab in 2018. Total U.S. health care spending grew by 4.6% last year, averaging $11,172 per person. In the real world, U.S. spending is concentrated on the sickest patients, with 5% of the population accounting for half of costs. Because of strong overall economic growth last year, health care spending as a share of the national economy declined slightly, from 17.9% in 2017 to 17.7%, the report found. Legislation pending in Congress to curb drug costs would mainly benefit older people on Medicare, who are the biggest consumers of medicines. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is forging ahead with a floor vote next week on her bill authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices for the costliest drugs, including insulin. Under her bill, private insurance plans would be able to get Medicare’s prices as well. But President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are solidly opposed to Medicare negotiations. Instead Trump is backing a bipartisan Senate bill that would require drugmakers to pay rebates to Medicare if they hike prices above inflation. As a candidate Trump had called for allowing Medicare to negotiate directly. Both bills would cap what Medicare recipients must pay annually in out-of-pocket costs for their prescriptions. The HHS report made no forecast of future prescription drug prices. It’s unclear if the 1% price decline seen last year may be the beginning of a sustained trend or was merely a temporary pullback by drug companies getting pummeled by Trump and lawmakers of both parties. Thursday’s report found that nearly 9 out of 10 prescriptions dispensed are for generic drugs, which puts downward pressure on prices. Even though prices of brand-name drugs increased more moderately, they still accounted for most of the spending on prescriptions — nearly 79%. The government’s findings on prices for brand-name drugs dovetailed with  an analysis earlier this year by The Associated Press. In the first seven months of 2019, drugmakers raised list prices for brand-name prescription medicines by a median of 5%, the AP found. That was down from about 9% or 10% over those months the prior four years. The AP’s findings suggest that an easing in drug prices may continue this year. Reducing prescription drug costs remains one of the top priorities for consumers. The White House claims that Trump has already delivered historic price cuts, but a recent Gallup poll found that 66% of adults believe the president has made little or no progress. The government study was published online by the journal Health Affairs. Claim: US report: Prescription drug prices down slightly last year.
[EX A]: Prices for prescription drugs edged down by 1% last year, a rare result driven by declines for generics and slow, low growth in the cost of brand-name medications, the government said Thursday.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Not applicable. No discussion of costs, but we think it’s common knowledge that these supplements are inexpensive. We have problems with the way this was handled. The subhead said, ""32 percent reduced odds seen in postmenopausal women."" But readers need to know 32% of what? It also explained that the study surveyed ""women who were between the ages of 50 and 76 and all past menopause."" But risk rises with age. So baseline risk in a 50 year-old is different than that in a 76-year old. So we would have preferred seeing absolute numbers for those in their 50s, 60s and 70s to make the message more meaningful. Not applicable. No discussion of harms, but this is not a serious issue in this case. We’re very pleased to see HealthDay include the line: ""we should not draw any conclusions about a causal relationship."" The study was ""observational"" only, and not a randomized trial that compared the use of fish oil with a group not using fish oil and the effect on cancer rates."" And the independent expert saying, ""The lower risk of breast cancer among women taking fish oil supplements could be due to chance."" (For comparison, an ABC News headline read, ""Breast Cancer Risk Lowered by Fish Oil."" That is far too definitive, and, thus, inaccurate. The story also touched on how squishy was the evidence when it quoted the researcher: ""She could not quantify the amount of fish oil supplements consumed, because ""current use"" was defined as any amount taken by a woman. ""Most women used it four to seven days a week. We don’t know how much,"" she noted"" No overt disease mongering. An important comment was made by an independent expert from the American Cancer Society: ""The lower risk of breast cancer among women taking fish oil supplements could be due to chance."" There could have been at least one line about other research looking at lowering the risk of breast cancer. The availability of fish oil supplements is not in question. The story quoted the researcher saying ""while studies examining the link between consuming fish or omega-3 fatty acids and breast cancer risk have produced inconsistent results, this is the first study that suggested a connection between fish oil supplements and reduced breast cancer risk."" It does not appear  that the story relied solely on a news release." Claim: Fish Oil Supplements Linked to Lower Risk of Breast Cancer: Study
[EX A]: You can read the full review below. But we don’t want to overlook what a big thing it is to see improvement in the two areas already noted. Keep it up, HealthDay. Breast cancer risk is not a one-size-fits-all story. It’s age-dependent. And this story should have pushed the researchers for age-specific breakdowns.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: We’re rating this one a cautious “Satisfactory.”  The story offers no information about the cost to a patient of a digital therapist, but it does reflect on the cost of creating and maintaining a similar app. This story does a good job of summarizing the benefits that accrued in the course of several studies. Risks are not broached here. This is an issue for a topic such as this, as one could imagine readers expressing concern about the efficacy of a non-human “therapist.” The story actually acknowledges that concern in its second paragraph (“It [the use of technology] might seem surprising, since therapy, more than many other kinds of medicine, is so focused on the relationship between patient and therapist.” But it never digs into the possible debits of wrestling with moderate depression online. We also think the story should have discussed the risk patients being victimized in an open source or relatively open chat room or other online group setting. One important element of psychiatry is privacy and patient confidentiality. Three studies are summarized in this text and, although those summaries are brief, the story allows readers to link to the texts themselves for more details. At least one of those studies, a meta-analysis, gathered the small number of experiments (13) that made explicit comparisons between internet-delivered and face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy. The text makes it clear that internet-based therapies may be more valuable for individuals with mild to moderate depression than for persons with severe depression, who would be more likely to seek face-to-face therapy regimens. But, in a word of caution, does that encourage people to overdiagnose themselves? That’s something to consider. Another cautious “Satisfactory.” One source is clearly identified as someone independent of one of the studies cited. Two others experts are not so identified but are not listed as coauthors on any of the studies. Funding for those studies is not mentioned. It’s worth noting here that two of the sources seem to be heads of institutes that are involved in the development of technological/Internet-based treatment approaches; both could benefit financially from being able to treat many more patients online. The piece discusses several interventions, and offers a graphic representation of recovery rates for individuals in Great Britain across five therapeutic modalities. But, there is no mention of psychiatric medications. Since those are frequently helpful in short-term situations and at least for moderate depression, they should have been included in the comparisons. The story identifies several therapeutic apps and, in a video, shows one individual using a “mobile therapy platform” to text and videochat with a therapist. Several comments in the story about the continuing evolution of these applications suggest that these strategies remain works in progress. A bit of historical information in the story makes it clear that online therapeutic agents have been around—in various stages of development—for more than a decade. This story integrates studies and sources, making reliance on news releases unlikely. Claim: To Treat Depression, Try a Digital Therapist
[EX A]:
This story heralds the evolution of internet-based therapies for treating mild to moderate depression. It summarizes several recent studies, which find that a combination of interacting with both a “smart” internet app and human therapists competes well with more traditional, face-to-face strategies. The story hits a lot of the right notes, employing independent sources, making clear that efficacy studies are still relatively sparse, and giving readers access to actual study texts. Missing from the story is any mention of potential downsides of internet-based therapies, an omission that seems important given the traditional, highly interpersonal nature of cognitive behavioral therapy. Initial research suggests that internet-based approaches to therapy can work for individuals with minor or moderate mental health problems. If that good news continues to hold over the course of further studies, such a strategy would be a boon in areas of the world with few mental health resources.