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: "At a rally in Houston, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg apologized for supporting the stop-and-frisk policy he endorsed while serving as mayor of New York City from 2002 to 2013. Bloomberg told the mostly black audience at the rally that he should have ""acted sooner and faster"" to stop the policy and said if he were elected, he’d use ""the power of the presidency to right the wrongs of institutional racism."" He used the rally as an opportunity to unveil a new initiative that he says will address issues specific to the black community in the United States: ""Mike for Black America."" One issue he highlighted in his address was access to health care. ""We will build a future in which we better protect the health of black mothers and their babies,"" Bloomberg said at the rally. ""You should know that black babies die at rates twice as high as white babies because of a lack of access to affordable health care and here, in the wealthiest country in the world, we cannot accept that and we will change that."" Bloomberg’s figure is accurate, but is he right in his assessment of the cause of this disparity? His team did not return a request for more information about his claim. Mortality rate higher for black infants The latest statistics on infant mortality from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that there were 22,341 infant deaths reported in the United States in 2017, putting the mortality rate at 5.79 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Statistics on infant mortality are compiled based on birth and infant death certificates in cases where infants less than a year died during the calendar year. Generally, the infant mortality rate has trended downward since 1995 and has declined 16% since 2005, when the rate was 6.86 deaths per 1,000 live births. The CDC also analyzes the infant mortality rate by race. In 2017, infants born to black women had the highest mortality rate of 10.97 deaths per 1,000 live births. The mortality rate for infants born to non-Hispanic white mothers was 4.67 deaths per 1,000 live births, meaning infants born to black mothers have an infant mortality rate 2.35 times higher than infants born to white mothers, according to the CDC. Bloomberg’s claim wasn’t limited to Texas, but this trend is also visible at the state level. A 2018 report from the CDC looked at infant mortality data from 2013 to 2015 by state and race and found that, in Texas, the mortality rate for infants born to non-Hispanic white women was 5 deaths per 1,000 live births and was 10.52 for infants born to black women. Exploring causes of disparity It’s true that infants born to black mothers have died at rates twice as high as white babies in recent years, but is it true that it is due to a lack of access to affordable health care? It isn’t that simple. The five leading causes of all infant deaths in 2017 identified by the CDC were all health related: In a 2019 report, the CDC noted that infants born to black women had the highest mortality rates for disorders related to short gestation (premature birth) and low birthweight and maternal complications. Numerous academic studies and media investigations have highlighted correlations between access to health care and the disparity in infant and maternal mortality rates between black and white mothers. But access to health care is widely considered to be one of many contributing factors. One 2017 study published in the American Journal of Public Health identified other factors that contribute to the high black infant mortality rate: socioeconomic status, maternal behavior, ""exposure to protective and risk factors over the course of a woman’s life,"" and certain historical factors like segregation, limited educational opportunities, structural racism, and intergenerational poverty. This is not to say that a lack of access to health care is not a significant cause of this disparity. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2019 explored how state Medicaid expansion associated with changes in low birthweight and preterm birth across different races — which are more likely to affect black mothers and infants than white mothers and infants. The study did not explore the link between Medicaid expansion and reducing infant mortality. Researchers found that overall, Medicaid expansion was not associated with differences in rates of low birth weight or preterm births. However, they identified ""significant improvements in relative disparities for black infants compared with white infants in states that expanded Medicaid vs. those that did not."" In other words, states that expanded Medicaid saw rates of low birthweight and preterm births decline among black mothers and infants. In general, black mothers were less likely than white mothers to access prenatal care, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s Office of Minority Health. In 2017, black mothers were 2.3 times more likely to receive no prenatal care or late prenatal care than non-Hispanic white mothers. The same year, 66.6% of black mothers received prenatal care during the first trimester, compared to 82.4% of white mothers who accessed early care. Our ruling Bloomberg said: ""Black babies die at rates twice as high as white babies because of a lack of access to affordable health care."" Bloomberg’s figures about the black infant mortality rate vs. the white infant mortality rate are accurate. Studies show that access to healthcare is a contributing factor to this disparity, but it is far from being the only issue at play." Claim: Michael Bloomberg Says “black babies die at rates twice as high as white babies because of a lack of access to affordable health care.”
Example Output: Bloomberg's figure about infant mortality rates is accurate, but his claim oversimplifies the cause of this disparity.

Example Input: Paragraph: "Opposing a proposal to reduce the amount of money that the state puts toward cancer research, Republican state Rep. Jim Keffer of Eastland focused on the financial impact the disease has on Texans. Addressing the measure’s author, GOP Rep. Rob Orr of Burleson, Keffer said in House debate April 3: ""Do you know … that the costs of cancer and all affiliated issues are over $20 billion a year to this state? So that is the reason that this is such a great program. We are having successes, and, really, to tamper with or harm it now … it’d be detrimental."" We wondered whether Keffer was right about cancer costs to Texas. First, some background: In 2007, with the backing of Gov. Rick Perry and bicycling superstar and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong, the Legislature voted to ask Texans to approve the sale of $3 billion in bonds over 10 years to finance cancer research grants. Voters gave the OK that fall, and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas was created to dole out the money. Orr’s 2011 measure, which the House rejected, would have reduced the annual sale of the cancer bonds by one-third over the next biennium. In response to our inquiry, Keffer’s chief of staff, Ky Ash, told us that the $20 billion cost statistic was a reference to May 2007 testimony by consultant and lobbyist Billy Hamilton, a former deputy state comptroller, before the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. During that hearing, which we reviewed online, Hamilton said he was not speaking for any group or agency in addressing ""the financial aspects"" of cancer in Texas. He pointed to a 2001 study commissioned by the Texas Comprehensive Cancer Control Coalition, a public-private group that is now known as the Cancer Alliance of Texas, and conducted by a research team led by David Warner, a professor of health and social policy at the University of Texas’ LBJ School of Public Affairs. The study estimated the total economic impact of cancer on Texas in 1998 as about $14 billion. According to the study, about $5 billion of the total represented ""direct costs,"" including hospitalization and other treatments, cancer screenings and medications, plus spending on research and other cancer-related programs by state agencies, nonprofit groups and private foundations. The remaining $9 billion reflected ""indirect costs"" — in this case, the value of the economic activity lost because someone was sick with or died from cancer. For example, the researchers estimated how much income and other economic benefits people who died of cancer in 1998 would have produced had they lived to their age group’s average life expectancy. So, Hamilton testified, the $14 billion total included numerous costs — including to the government, to families, in lost wages and in insurance — ""rolled together."" He then told the senators that he had drawn on the study to make a conservative estimate for the cost of cancer in Texas in 2008: ""just under $30 billion."" Noted: That’s quite a bit greater than Keffer’s aired figure. In an e-mail, Hamilton told us that he no longer has the original information that supported his analysis, but he said he reached his estimate by updating the 2001 figure using newer data on cancer incidence in Texas, plus demographic and economic figures and information on cancer costs. Hamilton said he believed his estimate was conservative because his price assumptions were closer to the general inflation rate than the increase in the costs of medical care, which is greater. Next, we looked for other research on the costs of cancer in Texas. Christine Mann, an assistant press officer at the Texas Department of State Health Services, pointed us to an analysis conducted by researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. It put the 2007 cost number at about $22 billion: $10 billion in direct costs and $12 billion in indirect costs. The March 2009 report, commissioned by the Texas Cancer Registry, says the researchers’ methodology combined an adaptation of a recently published National Cancer Institute approach with methods used by the LBJ School’s Warner in 2001. From 1998 to 2007, the more recent report says, the cost of cancer in Texas increased for several reasons, including an increase in the number of older Texans, rising health care costs and more expensive treatments. For information about cancer trends in Texas, we turned to the Texas Cancer Registry, a collaboration between the Texas Department of State Health Services, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. A February 2010 report says that although cancer rates (the number of new cases per 100,000 people) have been declining in recent years, the number of new cancer cases has been rising because of ""the increasing size and aging of the Texas population."" According to the Cancer Registry, there were 95,607 new cancer cases in Texas in 2007, the most recent data available. That’s an increase of 3.6 percent from the year before. Finally, we found an analysis of the 2010 costs of cancer in the state. Done by the Perryman Group, a Waco-based economic analysis firm, the report updates the direct and indirect cost estimate to about $25.3 billion. However, the report, conducted for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, says Perryman  ""developed a more comprehensive measure of the cost of cancer in terms of Texas business activity,"" including both losses stemming from treatment, illness and death — as the earlier studies measured — and ""spillover effects,"" which it considers ""further reductions in business activity."" Those additional reductions push estimated Texas economic losses to more than $150 billion and nearly 700,000 jobs, the Perryman report says. Finally, we looked for national expertise on the costs of cancer at the state level, finding none. Summing up: Keffer claimed that cancer and its related issues cost Texas upwards of $20 billion a year. Most of that figure is pegged to indirect costs. That said, the most recent research we found consistently pegged the total annual cost at considerably more than $20 billion." Claim: The costs of cancer and all affiliated issues are over $20 billion a year to this state.
Example Output:
Texas Rep. Jim Keffer says costs of cancer and related issues are over $20 billion a year in Texas