Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

Q: Paragraph: "According to a chain email making the rounds, people over 75 years old will be denied cancer treatment under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, after President Barack Obama. The email also states that vitamin B12 shots won’t be covered under Medicare because of Obamacare. Also, your primary care physician will have to admit you into a hospital -- as opposed to, oh let’s say, an emergency care doctor -- or Medicare won’t pay for it, again, because of Obamacare. Here’s a portion of the chain email, which a reader in Northeast Portland forwarded to PolitiFact Oregon, with a plea for more information. She said it came from a friend: ""Your hospital Medicare admittance has just changed under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 & 2014! … (ellipses) Please for the sake of many good people, please... pass this on. We all need to be informed. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS... At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment page  272."" The email goes on with a long list of other claims as assessed by a Judge David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas. PolitiFact Oregon hopped to it. And we learned very quickly -- through the power of the Internet -- that a version of this chain email has been kicking around since 2009, based on H.R. 3200, a 2009 bill that did not become law. Many of the claims have been debunked. In fact, FactCheck.org found just four of the 48 claims in the original email to be accurate. PolitiFact ruled two statements to be . The chain email has morphed over the years, with new assertions added. As for the cancer-related statement, the email cites page 272 of H.R. 3200 to back up its assertion that seniors at 76 are not eligible for cancer treatment. Later, the email specifies that under Section 1145 of H.R. 3200, ""cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age."" Neither statement is accurate. There is no rationing, based on age or otherwise, on cancer treatment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law in March 2010. Likewise, there is no rationing or cut-off age in 2009’s H.R. 3200. H.R. 3200 contained a section on ""treatment of certain cancer hospitals."" But the American Nurses Association described the section as  ""the opposite of rationing. The section allows Medicare to pay cancer hospitals more if they are incurring higher costs."" FactCheck.org agrees with the nurses group. And again, the bill never became law. ""All medically necessary treatment is covered by Medicare. Including cancer treatments, regardless of age,"" said Katherine Fitzpatrick with the Medicare Rights Center in Washington, D.C. and in New York. Yet, none of the debunking seems to matter, because four years later, the email lives on via the forward button. The Internet is unstoppable. What, we wondered, did the Texas judge think of his undying notoriety? ""I wish it would die. I can’t control it,"" David Kithil told PolitiFact Oregon. ""I don’t know how something like that goes viral like that."" The former judge said he wrote a letter to his local newspaper in 2009, protesting the initial version of the health care act. The letter was published in the River Cities Daily Tribune, circulation 5,000. Somehow, he said, the letter was republished online. Kithil wants readers to disregard his letter as it is outdated and based on legislation that did not become law. ""I’ve had calls from all over the country, 300 to 400 calls over three or four years on this,"" he said. He pleads with the callers, ""Don’t pass it on. It’s not accurate anymore. Trash it."" He says he still has problems with the Affordable Care Act, but that’s neither here nor there. Both the Medicare Rights Center and AARP, the national organization for seniors, verified that hospital admittance has to do with billing under parts A or B of Medicare, the government health plan for seniors 65 and older. The Affordable Care Act reduces Medicare payments to hospitals with readmissions within 30 days for certain conditions, such as pneumonia, but that’s not based on who admits the patient. Also, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid says Medicare has never covered vitamin B12 shots as a preventive benefit. Again, this isn’t related to the Affordable Care Act. Older patients diagnosed with cancer need not worry that treatment will be rationed or denied under the Affordable Care Act. The claim is based on an inaccurate reading of a bill that went nowhere. We don’t know where or how the specific age of 76 was added -- Kithil said he doesn’t remember including a specific age in his letter. But we do know enough to rule this widely debunked and ridiculous-on-its-face statement a ." Claim: "Chain email Says ""At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment"" under Affordable Care Act."

A: 0
****
Q: Paragraph: The story makes no mention of costs. Instead by saying, “could be on the market and available for thousands of patients in about five years’ time” it leaves readers with the impression that cost is not an issue. This is exactly the kind of device that an insurance company might put on its “ineligible” list. A quick review of the business media suggests the cost of the device will exceed $75,000 if it becomes commercially available. according to this Medical Device Technology Alert. It is hard to imagine why this important fact was overlooked in the story. Beyond saying in the lead that three people were able to “see shapes and objects,” there is not much else in the story to help readers understand the levels of vision improvements that were seen and how those should be compared to the preexisting conditions or other treatments. Then, confusingly, the story narrows its focus to just one patient saying, “one blind patient who had the device implanted was able to identify and find objects placed on a table in front of him, and was able to walk around a room independently. He could even read a clock face and differentiate between seven shades of grey, the researchers said. Tests were conducted starting from seven to nine days after the device was implanted.” It’s tough when writing a story about a study this small to put hard numbers to the benefits, but even some acknowledgment of this limitation would have been better than some of the overly optimistic sentiments expressed. The study itself and the press released provided more ways for the story to quantify the benefits. The story provides absolutely no information on the implant requirements for the device nor the potential downsides associated with this surgical procedure. There are some caveats tossed into this story, but they can’t overcome the hype. The story says in the lead that the implant “allowed three blind patients to see shapes and objects within days of treatment”. The next sentence says, “Experts described the study results as phenomenal”. The story does deserve credit for saying in the lead that only “three blind patients” saw vision improvement, but the story does little else to describe the limitations of the study or to place it in any context. The story engages in disease mongering by throwing in some sketchy numbers about the frequency of the disease. It says the device “could eventually change the lives of up to 200,000 people worldwide who suffer from blindness due to a degenerative eye disease called retinitis pigmentosa.” Later it says, “Retinitis pigmentosa in a genetic eye condition that leads to blindness and affects about 1 in 4,000 people worldwide.” By our math, 200,000 out of 6.8 billion people worldwide means that 1 out of every 34,500 people is affected. And if we’re just talking about adults, that number drops to 1 out of every 22,105 people, a far cry from 1 out of every 4,000. If it were truly one out of every 4,000 people worldwide, that would mean that 1.1 million people have the disease. The story does quote one presumed independent source, Robert Maclaren, a professor of Ophthalmology at Britain’s Oxford University. In the above mentioned Medical Technology Alert, the manufacturer announced that Dr. Maclaren will be the lead investigator on a clinical study expected to enroll six subjects to advance this same retinal implant technology. As a result, Dr. Maclaren can hardly be described as an independent expert. Overall, we felt that the story was missing a strong, independent analysis. Had the reporter talked with more researchers in the field or more clinicians, perhaps the story would have had a more thoughtful tone. The story mentions that there are other implants, saying, “Other types of retinal implants, known as epiretinal implants, sit outside the retina and because they bypass the intact light-sensitive structures in the eyes they require the patient to wear an external camera and processor unit.” But that’s not a true comparison, nor does it provide readers with the true picture of how much R&D is happening right now in this field. As is often the case in medicine, surgical options and devices are not the only solution. Lowly old Vitamin A is often the first step for treating retinitis pigmentosa. The story does a credible job noting that the device is under study and not commercially available. Unfortunately it also suggests, based on the manufacturer’s statement, that the device in a very early stage of development will be available in 5 years. The hyperbole used is indefensible – “the device could become routine for some kinds of blindness in five years” and “could eventually change the lives of up to 200,000 people worldwide.”  This comes after a test in 3 people. The novelty of the device is established. The story does not rely on a news release, and, in fact, this news release from the University of Tubingen contains more interesting information about the study than the story. Claim: Retinal implant trial helps blind people see shapes

A: 0
****
Q: Paragraph: The Tri-County Health Department said Thursday prairie dog burrows are being sprayed with insecticide to kill fleas that could transmit the disease to the rodents, people and pets. The health department says Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge and Prairie Gateway Open Space are temporarily closed. The department says parking at Dick’s Sporting Goods Park, where the Colorado Rapids play, is restricted to asphalt lots, and a planned fireworks display after Saturday’s game has been postponed. Tri-County Health Director Dr. John M. Douglas Jr. says plague is common in Colorado prairie dog colonies and can be managed safely with insecticides. Claim: Plague confirmed in prairie dogs in Commerce City.

A:
2
****