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.

Example Input: Paragraph: The Indian government had earlier put a hold on exports of hydroxychloroquine as well as on the pain reliever, paracetamol, saying it had to meet its internal demand. But Trump spoke to Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the weekend seeking supplies and later hinted that India may face retaliation. “It has been decided that India would licence paracetamol and HCQ in appropriate quantities to all our neighbouring countries who are dependent on our capabilities,” said Indian foreign ministry spokesman, Anurag Srivastava. “We will also be supplying these essential drugs to some nations who have been particularly badly affected by the pandemic,” he said. Claim: India will allow some exports of anti-malaria drug after Trump appeal.
Example Output: India will allow some exports of the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, the foreign ministry said on Tuesday, after U.S. President Donald Trump urged New Delhi to release supplies of the drug seen as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

Example Input: Paragraph: "When it comes to health care, state Senate hopeful Dan Gecker says the U.S. is in a dubious league of its own. ""Of the 25 wealthiest nations, we’re the only one that doesn’t provide basic health coverage,"" Gecker, a Democrat who serves on the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, said during an Aug. 18 candidates’ forum. Gecker is seeking the 10th District Senate seat that long has been held by Republican John Watkins, who is not seeking re-election. Also running is Glen Sturtevant, a Republican who serves on the Richmond School Board; Marleen Durfee, an independent who is a former Chesterfield supervisor; and Carl Loser, a Libertarian from Powhatan County. Gecker, in his comment, was referring to universal coverage, in which all citizens get national help in paying for health costs. We wondered if he was right about about the United States’ exceptional status among the wealthiest nations. Gecker pointed us to a report last year issued by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 34 nations -- mostly with industrialized economies -- seeking to improve trade. The report says only two OECD countries -- the U.S. and Mexico -- do not offer universal care. A chart in the study shows that all of the other OECD nations provide coverage for more than 90 percent of their people.. The roster of OECD nations, however, does not translate to a list of the 25 wealthiest countries. Gecker also directed us to the World Bank’s ranking of the wealthiest nations based on each country’s gross domestic product divided by its population -- a figure called GDP per capita. About two-thirds of the nations on the World Bank’s 25-richest list belong to the OECD. We sought to compare that ranking with a list of all nations that provide universal health care. We found two organizations that try to keep tabs on nations that provide universal coverage. One is the New York State Department of Health, which compiled a 2011 list to give medical providers guidance on billing practices when they treat foreign patients. The other resource is a 2010 study by researchers in the United Kingdom and the U.S. examining universal health care around the world. Among high GDP-per-capita nations, universal care coverage is the norm. Only three of the 25 wealthiest -- the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- weren’t listed as having universal health care. The embassy for Qatar told us that the country does provide universal health care. Saudi Arabia is listed as providing universal health care in a June 28, 2012, story from The Atlantic magazine. We reached out to the Saudi Arabian embassy several times to confirm that’s the case, but did not hear back. A 1998 study published in the Journal of Family Community Medicine says ""Saudi Arabian policy is to provide free, comprehensive and universal health care services to all citizens."" The final source Gecker cited is a 2012 op-ed by David de Ferranti, former vice president of the World Bank, and Julio Frenk, the former dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, about universal health care coverage. ""Except for the United States, the 25 wealthiest nations have some form of it (universal coverage),"" de Ferranti and Frenk wrote in their op-ed. We got a similar take from two other health care analysts we contacted. Andrea Feigl, a visiting scientist at Harvard who co-wrote the 2010 U.K.-U.S. report, told us in an email that ""The United States is still on its way towards UHC (Universal Health Coverage), and it is the last developed country to do so."" The World Health Organization said in a September 2014 report that the United States is ""currently the only high-income country without nearly universal health-care coverage."" Our ruling Gecker said that ""of the 25 wealthiest nations, we’re the only one that doesn’t provide basic health coverage."" Gecker was referring to rich nations that provide coverage to all of their citizens. We can’t say definitively that the U.S. is the only one that doesn’t provide universal coverage, but evidence strongly points that way." Claim: Of the 25 wealthiest nations, we're the only one that doesn't provide basic health coverage.
Example Output: "Gecker said that ""of the 25 wealthiest nations, we’re the only one that doesn’t provide basic health coverage."" Gecker was referring to rich nations that provide coverage to all of their citizens. We can’t say definitively that the U.S. is the only one that doesn’t provide universal coverage, but evidence strongly points that way."

Example Input: Paragraph: This was a strong point for the story, which did provide some information on cost. “The study did not address whether screening is cost-effective. In the U.S., cholesterol tests cost around $80 and usually are covered by health insurance, though much lower prices often are negotiated. The study authors in England estimated that if cholesterol testing costs $7 and gene testing costs $300, it would cost $2,900 for every person identified as having the disorder.” We wish the story would have noted the cost of gene testing in the U.S. but otherwise found this satisfactory. The story also could have noted that although statin drugs are generic and relatively inexpensive, the long-term costs of treatment from childhood onward are likely to be significant. The story quantified the findings this way: “For every 1,000 people screened in the study, four children and four parents were identified as being at risk for early heart disease. That’s nearly twice as many as most studies in the past have suggested.” That lets us know how many more people might get identified if screening was widened, but readers should also be informed that it isn’t clear if this ultimately reduces cardiac deaths. The harms of screening including false positives and negatives, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, inappropriate disease labelling and so on are not mentioned. The story explains how many babies were tested and how they were tested. But, we didn’t get a sense of how reliable these testing methods are, nor what the study’s limitations were. Instead, the story implied that the study showed that screening kids will lower their risk, with statements like this: “What if a blood test could reveal that your child is at high risk for early heart disease years in the future, giving you a chance to prevent it now?” The story included numbers on how prevalent this condition is, and the increased risk of heart disease that it carries, though it would have been stronger if it had given specifics on what the baseline risk is versus the 10-fold increase. The story included independent sources. Also, the story discloses this: “The study was led by Dr. David Wald at Queen Mary University of London. He and another author founded a company that makes a combination pill to prevent heart disease. The work was funded by the Medical Research Council, the British government’s health research agency.” The alternative here is no screening in early childhood. Are these sorts of genetic tests available for parents to buy off the shelf, or ask for a referral from a doctor to get? The story doesn’t clarify. The story establishes the novelty of the study by explaining that it found that this genetic condition is more common than originally thought. There are two sources who do not appear to be associated with the study. Claim: Testing cholesterol in toddlers, even younger? Study says it could help
Example Output:
This is a story looking at a study that found familial hypercholesterolemia was more common than previously thought. This condition is associated with an increased risk of heart disease and heart attacks in adults under 40. As a result, researchers are proposing that more kids get screened, and possibly start treatment earlier, to reduce this risk. One commentator noted:  “We really need to pay attention to this” and “It’s reasonable to screen for something that’s common, dangerous and has a treatment that’s effective and safe.” The corollary to this statement is that there is little direct evidence that treating children with medication to lower cholesterol reduces cardiac deaths, and there are plenty of unknowns, such as the costs of screening and labeling very young kids with a disease that may not cause any problems for a long time. The story should have done more to explore both sides of this issue. Parents want to do everything they can to make sure their children have a long and healthy life, and so a story about a genetic condition being more common than previously thought is likely to be read widely. Unfortunately, the story’s framing takes the stance that finding the risk factors for this disease very early on in life leads to an overall benefit. But the study provides no evidence of that, and parents need to know this.