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.

[Q]: Paragraph: The Boston Public Health Commission and Mayor Marty Walsh announced the two cases on Wednesday. Officials say both cases have been associated with daycare centers specializing in serving children experiencing homelessness. It is not known if the two cases are connected. The disease is highly infectious and can lead to meningitis, an infection of the brain and spinal cord. According to the commission, the disease is spread through saliva and requires close contact. Any people known to have been in close contact with the children have received antibiotics. The last day either child was at one of the centers was Friday. Claim: 2 cases of meningococcal disease detected in Boston.
[A]: Two young children in Boston have been diagnosed with meningococcal disease.


[Q]: Paragraph: Costs are mentioned reasonably early in the story, and with specificity. This was good to see. Benefits of these tests are touted, but not quantified. An officer of the National Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance, an advocacy group, testifies that the outcomes of women who have surgery from a gynecologic oncologist “are much better.” But we don’t know what that means. Is it longer survival? Later the story explains that combining the two blood tests with assessment by a clinician “better determined the patients who should be referred to a [gynecological oncologist], identifying well over 90 percent of the women who actually had cancer.”  (Note that this statistic reflects only referral to a gyn-onc, not patient survival.) But how does that compare to the standard assessment tools? A 2016 study described as publication “of the first clinical utility data” demonstrating that use of OVA1 resulted in referral of ovarian patients to gynecologic oncologists offers similar outcomes but is not mentioned in the story. We’re told that experts fear that these tests could lead to unnecessary surgery or delayed diagnosis, and that’s sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story could have delved into a bit more of the specifics: What is the evidence for these concerns? What are the false positive and false negative rates? These details are useful because the point of the story is that clinicians are not using these tests to try to improve outcomes of ovarian cancer patients. Are the possible debits–or uncertainties driven by lack of clinical data–contributing to these decisions? There isn’t sufficient information on the evidence behind these tests. The FDA has approved ROMA and OVA1 for use, but the studies that led to that decision are not discussed. Nor is there sufficient discussion of why the physician groups that write guidelines haven’t endorsed the tests. Their concerns are raised, but the evidence is not presented or analyzed. A late diagnosis of ovarian cancer is way too common, and the outcome is grim. At the same time, the anecdotes seem to highlight the sad aspect of the disease without necessarily providing a relevant case in which the tests described would have helped (any more than a basic blood test would have). The companies responsible for developing and marketing these two tests are front and center in this story, with scientists affiliated with the companies clearly identified. At least two sources in the story—one of them a scientist affiliated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network—appear to be independent of the companies. The story makes it clear that no effective early detection screening test exists. Existing strategies—the CA125 blood test and vaginal ultrasound—are mentioned and then discounted, in part via a personal narrative of a young woman who received a late diagnosis of cancer. While data-driven specifics aren’t included on why standard methods aren’t sufficient, this is enough to rate Satisfactory. A direct comparison of survival stemming from existing diagnostic tests relative to survival stemming from ROMA and OVA1 would have strengthened the story. If those numbers aren’t available, that should have been pointed out. The story makes it clear that the two blood tests have been available since 2009. The story mentions that the tests are combinations of existing tests with a “proprietary” formula (essentially a risk prediction tool) to translate the results to likelihood of cancer. But, the article should have talked about whether the tests, other than CA-125, have been used before. This appears to be an enterprise story, and does not rely on a news release. Claim: Ovarian cancer blood tests: Available, not widely used
[A]: This is a story about the apparent underuse of two blood tests—ROMA and OVA1—that are FDA approved to help clinicians decide whether surgery to investigate abnormal growths should be performed by a gynecologic oncologist (“gyn-onc”) trained to remove malignant ovarian cancer, rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist or a general surgeon. The gist of the story is that the tests have not been widely adopted in the ensuing years, “largely because they haven’t been recommended by the physician groups that write the care guidelines.” The story hit on a lot of important notes–it told readers the cost of these tests, and it included comments from independent sources. What is not clear is the extent to which clinical evidence supports the increased use of the two tests. We’re told they accurately picked up about 90 percent of cancer cases. But we’re not told how that compares to standard methods of detection. As the story notes, surviving ovarian cancer is an uphill battle–it is often a deadly disease caught too late. Any procedure that increases the probability of survival is worth careful consideration.


[Q]: Paragraph: The former New York mayor and Democratic presidential candidate embraced a new government-run “public option” to compete with private insurance and called for Medicare to negotiate drug prices, using an approach similar to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent legislation. “It’s in the Biden-Buttigieg world rather than Sanders-Warren,” said John Holahan, a health policy expert with the nonpartisan Urban Institute think tank. Holahan reviewed an outline of the plan provided by the Bloomberg campaign. On health care, leading 2020 Democrats are divided between the step-by-step strategy favored by moderates like former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and the “Medicare for All” plan envisioned by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and seconded by progressives wanting a single, government-run system for all Americans. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has that as her ultimate goal. Bloomberg announced his plan during a speech in Memphis. The state of Tennessee is one of 14 that has not expanded Medicaid for low-income people under the Obama-era Affordable Care Act, or ACA. Tennessee copes with a high burden of chronic illness and ranked 44th this year in an annual state-by-state report card from the nonprofit United Health Foundation. “Leadership isn’t dreaming up a plan that can never pass Congress,” Bloomberg said, taking a swipe at backers of Medicare for All. “Every American who already has private insurance will be able to keep private insurance if they choose,” he added. “We’ll work aggressively to enroll uninsured Americans.” The Memphis speech came a day after a federal appeals court in New Orleans left “Obamacare’s” future in doubt, ruling that the law’s now toothless requirement for Americans to get health insurance is unconstitutional. The decision keeps the rest of the law in place for now, subject to additional court review. Bloomberg said as president he’d defend the ACA in court. But he wouldn’t reinstate its unpopular “individual mandate,” as the Obama-era coverage requirement is known. Instead, he’s calling for an extensive outreach campaign to voluntarily sign up uninsured people, relying on a strategy he piloted as New York mayor. The campaign said the plan would cover most of the nation’s estimated 27.5 million uninsured people. Key elements of the Bloomberg plan include: — Extending subsidized coverage under the ACA to cover more people and creating a permanent federal program to help insurers pay for the costliest patients, an approach that has been shown to lower premiums. — A new “public option” health insurance plan run by the government and modeled on Medicare. It would be focused on low-income people and residents of states that have not expanded Medicaid. Individuals would be eligible for help paying their premiums through the ACA’s subsidies. — Empowering Medicare to negotiate prices for the costliest brand-name drugs, capping prices at 120% of the average in other economically advance countries. Privately insured patients would be able to get Medicare’s prices. Seniors’ out-of-pocket costs for medicines would be capped at $2,000 per year. — Creating a new Medicare benefit for dental, hearing and vision care with a premium of $25 a month for beneficiaries. Expanding Medicaid benefits to include dental care for low-income people. — Ending so-called “surprise medical bills” for people covered by private insurance when they’re treated by a provider outside their plan’s network. The plan would cap out-of-network hospital charges at 200% of what Medicare pays. The Bloomberg campaign said the plan would cost about $1.5 trillion over 10 years, with some of that covered through expected savings on prescription drugs. Officials said Bloomberg intends for the plan to be fully paid for, so it would not add to the government’s mounting debt. Bloomberg said he’s working on a separate plan to improve basic public health throughout the country, striving to reverse recent declines in life expectancy blamed in part on the opioid epidemic. Claim: Bloomberg health plan aims to lower costs, cover more people.
[A]:
Putting his stamp on the top issue for Democratic voters, Michael Bloomberg on Thursday unveiled a health care plan that would expand coverage and cut people’s costs by building on the current system, not replacing it.