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 Input:
Paragraph: The bulk of the money will come from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and its affiliates for paying to delay a generic narcolepsy drug, Provigil, from entering the market for nearly six years. Teva is paying $69 million, which Becerra says is the largest pay-for-delay settlement received by any state. Such agreements let the developer of brand name drugs keep their monopolies over the drugs after their patents expire, thereby letting them continue to charge consumers higher prices. The drug developer pays the generic manufacturer to keep the cheaper version of the drug from entering the marketplace for an agreed period of time. Teva said the money will come from a pre-existing fund that was created in 2015 as part of the company’s settlement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over similar claims, and it will not make any additional payments. Becerra said such agreements can force consumers and the health care market to pay as much as 90% more than if there were generic alternatives. More than $25 million of the settlement will go to a consumer fund for California residents who purchased Provigil, Nuvigil or Modafinil between 2006 and 2012. “No one in America should be forced to skip or ration doses of medicine that they need ... and certainly not because a drug company is colluding to keep the price of your drug artificially high even when cheaper options could be available. But that’s what’s happening,” Becerra said. The second, $760,000 settlement is with Teva, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Teikoku Pharma USA over keeping a genetic alternative to the pain patch Lidoderm from entering the market for nearly two years. Teva said it is paying $200,000 to cover the state’s legal costs after settling similar federal claims earlier this year. Neither Endo nor Teikoku responded to requests for comment. Both settlements bar the companies from pay-for-delay agreements for several years. Teva is agreeing to not to enter any such agreements for 10 years, while Endo Pharmaceuticals has an eight-year agreement and Teikoku a 20-year injunction. Teva said the restriction is identical to its federal consent decree. Becerra also backed pending legislation, AB824 by Democratic Assemblyman Jim Wood of Santa Rosa, that would ban such agreements. The measure would require pharmaceutical companies to prove that their agreements are not anticompetitive. It passed the Assembly 56-0 in May and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. Pharmaceutical companies oppose the bill, arguing the Federal Trade Commission already does this monitoring. ___ This story has been corrected to say that while there are four settlement agreements, they involve only three companies. Claim: 3 companies pay California $70 million for delaying drugs.

Ex Output:
Three pharmaceutical companies collectively are agreeing to pay California nearly $70 million to settle allegations that they delayed drugs to keep prices high, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Monday.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Limiting the quantity per dosage unit will reduce the risk of inadvertent overdose, which can lead to liver failure, liver transplant and death, the Food and Drug Administration said. It cited the fact that no available data showed that taking more than the recommended dose provided benefits that outweighed the added risks. (link.reuters.com/nen95v)  Inadvertent overdose from combination drugs containing acetaminophen, also known as paracetamol in most countries outside the United States, accounts for nearly half of all cases of acetaminophen-related liver failure in the United States, the agency said. Combination acetaminophen products are commonly prescribed to patients to treat pain from acute injuries, post-operative pain, or pain following dental procedures. In January 2011, the FDA asked manufacturers of combination drugs containing acetaminophen, sold globally under trade names such as Tylenol and Panadol, to limit acetaminophen doses to no more than 325 mg in each tablet or capsule by January 14, 2014. (link.reuters.com/hyn95v)  Some of these products still remain available, the agency said. The FDA also suggested that pharmacists who receive a prescription for a combination product with more than the recommended dose contact the prescriber to discuss using a lower dose. In the near future, the FDA plans to institute proceedings to withdraw approval for combination drugs that remain on the market, it said in a statement. Acetaminophen, one of the most commonly used drugs in the United States, is widely used in both prescription and over-the-counter products to reduce pain and fever. Claim: FDA asks doctors to limit acetaminophen in combination drugs.

Ex Output:
U.S. health regulators recommended on Tuesday that healthcare professionals stop prescribing combination drugs that contain more than 325 milligrams of acetaminophen per tablet, capsule, or other dosage unit, citing the risk of liver damage.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The lawsuit filed Friday by Paul Callicoat and his family, of Sarcoxie, Missouri, came a day after the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services granted 60 licenses  from the more than 500 companies that applied. The Callicoats, who had planned to open a cultivation facility called Sarcoxie Nursery, were not among those who won a license. The family’s lawsuit argues the state’s 60-license limit violates the state constitution’s “right to farm” amendment passed by voters in 2014. The lawsuit also challenges the state’s selection process that gave more points to businesses in high-unemployment ZIP codes, saying that “geographic bonus” was announced after the family had already paid a non-refundable $10,000 application fee. The health department did not respond to a request by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for comment. A hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled for Monday. Missouri voters made medical marijuana legal in 2018. The licensing program is expected to wind up by February with the awarding of licenses to applicants seeking to sell cannabis products to Missourians holding doctor-approved cards. Claim: Rejected medical marijuana grower applicant sues Missouri.

Ex Output:

A southwest Missouri family that saw its application to grow medical marijuana rejected by the state is now suing the state, demanding a license to participate in Missouri’s fledgling medical cannabis industry.