instruction:
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.
question:
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.
answer:
"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."


question:
Paragraph: "As a matter of course, stories about the increased use of drugs should report the drugs’ prices. A change in guidelines based on the study would increase the number of patients eligible for treatment by several hundred thousand in the US. The annualized cost of drug treatment is $12,000-$24,000 depending on the regimen, leading to potential new expenditures of $24 to $48 billion. While there are significant offsets, the potential for this level of additional costs should have been included in the story The story states that delaying treatment ""nearly doubles the risk of dying over the next several years"" and yields a ""70 percent improvement in survival."" This reporting is vague. The story should have compared absolute risks, not relative risks. See our primer on this issue. The story should have included the time span studied. These numbers should have stated the two death rates directly so readers can understand the magnitude of the benefit–whether the risk of death went from [say] 2 percent to 1 percent or from 30 percent to 15 percent. The story places the recommended treatment of earlier drug intervention in the context of the treatments’ known side effects, which can be very serious. The story should have described the severity of those side effects. We give this a satisfactory score, but barely. The report is based on a study presented at a major medical meeting. The story should have mentioned the fact that it has not been published or peer-reviewed. It should also have pointed out that it was a retrospective cohort study, which is considered to be less conclusive than prospective, double-blind studies. It should also have pointed out, as the NIH press release does, that a clinical trial is needed to validate the results in a way that would call for changing the current guidelines. These failures to provide caveats and context earn the story an ""unsatisfactory"" rating under this criterion. The story does not exaggerate the gravity or prevalance of AIDS. The story quotes Anthony Fauci, one of the best-known and -respected experts in the field of HIV/AIDS. The story also quotes the study’s lead investigator, and the author of AIDS treatment guidelines. That source’s link to companies that make AIDS drugs is properly noted. The story also quotes an independent clinician familiar with the guidelines and the current research. The story plainly compares the current guidelines with the regimen tested. The story explains that the drug combinations used by AIDS patients have been widely used since the mid-1990s. No claims are made for the novelty of the drug treatment. The recommendation to treat earlier is presented not as novel, but as a plan under consideration and study for quite some time. The story does not draw excessively on the NIH press release." Claim: AIDS treatment should be started sooner, study says
answer:
"This is a Columbus Dispatch version of a story reported by the Associated Press. Since the Columbus paper changed the original article substantially, we send our comments to the Columbus paper. Taking the big view, this story about the benefits of starting the standard multi-drug AIDS treatment sooner than current guidelines suggest accomplishes its mission. It fairly describes important new research that verifies earlier work suggesting the same thing. It says, correctly, that the continuing research could drive changes in treatment. The story is well-sourced and provides a lucid description of the disease process and detailed definition of ""early"" treatment. Having said that, the report falls short of two key best practices:  It fails to quantify the benefits of early treatment in a meaningful way. It uses ""relative risk"" [a percent reduction in mortality] instead of ""absolute risk"" [which would allow readers to understand the gravity of the risk and the size of the benefit. It fails to describe the limitations of the study with caveats and context. If the story had mentioned those limitations, its predictions of imminent clinical use and eventual changes to the guidelines would have been properly tempered. As presented, the story fails to check the sources’ consistent enthusiasm with journalistic disinterest. Given the credibility of the study, the opinions of multiple high-quality sources and the previous research record, the predictions seem justifiable. But the history of AIDS science, treatment and politics recommends a bit more reporting distance and care."


question:
Paragraph: The 75-year-old Frenchman is eating normally and spent three hours sitting in a chair in the company of his family on Sunday, the team caring for him at the Georges Pompidou European Hospital in Paris said. “The artificial heart is functioning normally, automatically catering to the body’s needs without any manual adjustment necessary,” surgeons Alain Carpentier and Christian Latremouille said in a statement issued by the hospital. Three more patients in France are due to be fitted with the device. In this first series of clinical studies, its success will be judged on whether patients survive with the implant for at least a month. The people selected suffer from terminal heart failure - when the sick heart can no longer pump enough blood to sustain the body - and would otherwise have only a few days or weeks to live. The hospital said it would give another update on the first patient in one week. A spokeswoman for Carmat said the company declined to comment at such an early stage in the trial. Heart-assistance devices have been used for decades as a temporary solution for patients awaiting transplants, but Carmat’s bioprosthetic product is designed to replace the real heart over the long term, mimicking nature using biological materials and sensors. It aims to extend life for patients suffering from terminal heart failure who cannot hope for a heart transplant, often because they are too old and donors too scarce. Carmat shares were 4.2 percent higher at 112.39 euros at 1308 GMT, trading in volumes more than twice the daily average of the past three months. Claim: Carmat artificial heart patient in good condition: hospital.
answer:

French artificial heart maker Carmat’s first patient is in a “very satisfactory condition” 12 days after being fitted with the device, the hospital treating him said on Monday.