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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Though modest, it was the first such price drop in 45 years, according to nonpartisan economic experts at the federal Department of Health and Human Services, who deliver an annual report on the nation’s health care spending. The price drop was for retail pharmacy prescriptions, not medications administered in hospitals or doctor’s offices. HHS experts said the last time retail prescription drug prices declined was in 1973, when they went down by 0.2%. The price drop comes amid questionable prospects for major legislation to curb prescription drug costs. Nonetheless, it was a nugget of decent news in a sobering, broader report on rising U.S. health care spending. The HHS report found that spending on prescription medicines at pharmacies accounted for 9% of the total $3.6 trillion national health care tab in 2018. Total U.S. health care spending grew by 4.6% last year, averaging $11,172 per person. In the real world, U.S. spending is concentrated on the sickest patients, with 5% of the population accounting for half of costs. Because of strong overall economic growth last year, health care spending as a share of the national economy declined slightly, from 17.9% in 2017 to 17.7%, the report found. Legislation pending in Congress to curb drug costs would mainly benefit older people on Medicare, who are the biggest consumers of medicines. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is forging ahead with a floor vote next week on her bill authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices for the costliest drugs, including insulin. Under her bill, private insurance plans would be able to get Medicare’s prices as well. But President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are solidly opposed to Medicare negotiations. Instead Trump is backing a bipartisan Senate bill that would require drugmakers to pay rebates to Medicare if they hike prices above inflation. As a candidate Trump had called for allowing Medicare to negotiate directly. Both bills would cap what Medicare recipients must pay annually in out-of-pocket costs for their prescriptions. The HHS report made no forecast of future prescription drug prices. It’s unclear if the 1% price decline seen last year may be the beginning of a sustained trend or was merely a temporary pullback by drug companies getting pummeled by Trump and lawmakers of both parties. Thursday’s report found that nearly 9 out of 10 prescriptions dispensed are for generic drugs, which puts downward pressure on prices. Even though prices of brand-name drugs increased more moderately, they still accounted for most of the spending on prescriptions — nearly 79%. The government’s findings on prices for brand-name drugs dovetailed with  an analysis earlier this year by The Associated Press. In the first seven months of 2019, drugmakers raised list prices for brand-name prescription medicines by a median of 5%, the AP found. That was down from about 9% or 10% over those months the prior four years. The AP’s findings suggest that an easing in drug prices may continue this year. Reducing prescription drug costs remains one of the top priorities for consumers. The White House claims that Trump has already delivered historic price cuts, but a recent Gallup poll found that 66% of adults believe the president has made little or no progress. The government study was published online by the journal Health Affairs. Claim: US report: Prescription drug prices down slightly last year.

Output: Prices for prescription drugs edged down by 1% last year, a rare result driven by declines for generics and slow, low growth in the cost of brand-name medications, the government said Thursday.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Rather than outline specific recommendations, the 300-page document is meant to be a resource for state regulators as they begin the process in 2020 of drafting formal rules aimed at reducing methane emissions. Despite industry claims that companies have been able to reduce emissions while still setting production records, environmentalists have been pushing hard for more regulations at the state level to target methane leaks and the practice of venting and flaring. The report is the result of numerous meetings over the last four months by the Methane Advisory Panel, a group of more than two dozen experts knowledgeable about various parts of the oil and gas business. The panel included industry representatives, environmental lawyers and experts from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Colorado State University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The discussions centered on topics like compressor engines, storage tanks and pneumatic valves. New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney said the effort put into the report is unparalleled in its thoroughness. “This is exactly the baseline information we need to effectively tackle methane emissions in our state,” he said. The state will be accepting public comment on the report through Feb. 20. XTO Energy President Staale Gjervik said the company’s experience shows methane emissions can be mitigated in a cost-effective way but that full industry participation is important. XTO was among those represented on the panel. The report highlights various strategies to reduce emissions, such as switching to low- or no-bleed pneumatic controllers and increasing leak detection and monitoring equipment. The need for more infrastructure also was identified as a possible way to reduce venting and flaring — although the report stated flaring, or the burning off of excess natural gas during extraction, was a necessary part of the process. The state will host public meetings in the coming months to discuss the findings with community members across the state. Stronger regulations for methane emissions will be critical as the oil boom in New Mexico continues, said Hillary Hull of the Environmental Defense Fund, another member of the advisory panel. She said the state’s process in developing the analysis was been inclusive, representing countless hours of research and input from a diverse cross-section of stakeholders. “Next year will be the critical time for moving forward on enforceable, nationally-leading methane rules that protect our air, address the climate crisis and improve education funding for New Mexico families and future generations,” she said. Earlier this month, trade groups representing the oil and gas industries in New Mexico and Texas release an analysis that showed a decline in methane emissions in both states as production tripled. The research also showed that the amount of methane burned off or emitted per barrel of oil equivalent was reduced by 64 percent in the Permian Basin during the past seven years. Meanwhile, the report cited a 210% increase in oil production in the Permian since 2011. Ryan Flynn, executive director at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association said Permian producers are leading the industry when it comes to environmental practices and emissions reductions. “As energy markets across the globe look to America for their energy needs, we are creating the solutions of the future to deliver cleaner, more reliable energy to people and communities in every corner of the planet,” he said in a statement. Claim: New Mexico releases methane emissions report.

Output: An advisory panel has released a technical report that covers how emissions are produced by oil and natural gas development and how New Mexico might be able to curb pollution from the industry.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Editor’s note: While researching this fact check, Rep. Bilirakis’ office on July 2, 2015, provided us with its research methodology using data through the Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Markets Program Data. Using this database, Bilirakis’ aides showed a 21.82 percent change in carbon dioxide tonnage emitted from Florida power plants between 2005 and 2012. PolitiFact was able to reproduce these results on July 2 when we followed their methodology, obtaining the same database numbers directly from the EPA website. We shared results with numerous sources who agreed the methodology was sound and the results illustrated Bilirakis’ point. We published the check with a . Later that day, an EPA contact informed us the 2012 figure used in Bilirakis’ calculation was incorrect. The agency calculated percent change between 2005 and 2012 was 13.87 percent, not 21.82 percent. When we queried the database again, the figure we received was the number the EPA cited. Neither Bilirakis’ aides nor the EPA could explain the discrepancy. An environmental scientist with the EPA said there had not been a revision of the figures since 2013. The 20 percent figure has been used by Bilirakis and other members of the Florida Republican caucus since at least November 2014, although this is the first time PolitiFact has checked it. We are seeking an explanation for this discrepancy and will post findings when we have them. Republicans in Congress recently voted for legislation that would prevent the federal government from implementing new emissions regulations on power plants -- in part, some argue, because utilities are already cutting carbon levels on their own. U.S. Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Palm Harbor, said that HR 2042, known as the Ratepayer Protection Act, would protect states from costly rules that aren’t necessary. The bill would delay the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce nationwide carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 30 percent by 2030. The legislation also would allow states to opt out of the reduced emissions requirement. ""The EPA’s proposal on this rule has drawn widespread concern,"" Bilirakis said in a speech on June 24, 2015, before the GOP-majority House passed the legislation along party lines. ""It placed a heavier burden on Florida than other states, despite the fact that Florida has reduced its carbon emissions by 20 percent since 2005."" Congressional fights over regulations are not new, but we did a double take when Bilirakis said carbon emissions were down 20 percent over the last decade. (A reader sent us his comment and asked us to check it.) We decided to check whether the data fuels his claim. Carbon dating the claim We need to make sure one point is clear: Bilirakis was talking specifically about electricity generating power plants here. That’s important to understand, because the context wasn’t immediately clear to us -- or to some of our sources. The EPA’s new emission goals, which won’t be finalized until August, target power plants for that 30 percent reduction, starting at 2005 levels. The guidelines are part of President Barack Obama’s larger Climate Action Plan to enforce lower levels of air and water pollution. Some states and electricity providers have sued the EPA, saying the new rules are unnecessary and expensive for utilities, and therefore consumers. Enter the House’s Ratepayer Protection Act, which would keep the 30 percent reduction guidelines from going into effect for power plants until the justice system rules whether the EPA plan is legal. Obama has vowed to veto the Ratepayer Protection Act if it passes. A Bilirakis spokesman backed up the 20 percent figure by looking at EPA carbon dioxide emissions data for power plants generating more than 25 megawatts of electricity, which are covered by the EPA threshold for the guidelines. That data showed that between 2005 and 2012, the latest year with complete figures, Florida had reduced its power plant carbon dioxide emissions by 21.8 percent. That seems like a small slice of data, but even experts who were for the stronger emissions regulations told us it’s a valid use of the numbers to back up Bilirakis’ point. Power plants in Florida affected by the Clean Power Plan really have cut carbon dioxide by that much, according to the EPA. Of course, our first reaction to this claim was that all sources of carbon dioxide emissions had receded, which also turns out to be the case, although not at as high a rate. Accounting for cars, commercial and residential use, and a whole range of petroleum products, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says Florida’s overall emissions total have dropped about 15.7 percent in the same time span. The agency told us it’s not hard to imagine the number continuing to drop in subsequent years, but the data doesn’t show a 20 percent decrease. A look at the overall data from the EPA, which is recorded and calculated a little differently, puts the decrease from all sources at about 13.4 percent. What’s driving the downward trend for power plants? Environmental groups point out that there are several causes. Part of the change is because of utilities switching from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas (usage is up 67.6 percent between 2005 and 2012 in Florida) as natural gas prices have fallen. Credit also can go to increased efficiency in everything from air conditioners to washing machines to refrigerators. Some of the new product efficiencies are the result of other regulations, like the federal push to switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs. And while Florida was the second-highest electricity producing state in the country behind Texas in 2014, it still imports power to meet demand. That means if a power plant in another state burns fuel to generate electricity to sell to Florida, those carbon dioxide emissions don’t go against Florida’s total. That may be skewing the use-to-emissions ratio a bit. Finally, critics of the House legislation point out there’s one more caveat to the data Bilirakis cited: There’s no guarantee the state will maintain that drop in carbon dioxide from power plants. ""There is nothing to keep these emissions down to their current levels,"" said Susan Glickman, Florida director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, which opposes the Ratepayer Protection Act. ""If natural gas prices went back up, folks would start running coal plants more and emissions would increase -- absent any CO2 emission regulations."" Our ruling Bilirakis said, ""Florida has reduced its carbon emissions by 20 percent since 2005."" It may not be immediately clear from Bilirakis’ speech, but he’s only talking about carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that would be affected by the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Those are the guidelines that would be put on hold by the bill passed by the House. EPA data show those Florida electricity generators have cut carbon dioxide emissions by 21.8 percent between 2005 and 2012. Overall carbon dioxide emissions from all sources didn’t decrease quite as much, dropping anywhere from 13.4 to 15.7 percent. Environmental groups also warned that the current reductions aren’t guaranteed. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information." Claim: Florida has reduced its carbon emissions by 20 percent since 2005.


Output: "Bilirakis said, ""Florida has reduced its carbon emissions by 20 percent since 2005."" It may not be immediately clear from Bilirakis’ speech, but he’s only talking about carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that would be affected by the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Those are the guidelines that would be put on hold by the bill passed by the House. EPA data show those Florida electricity generators have cut carbon dioxide emissions by 21.8 percent between 2005 and 2012. Overall carbon dioxide emissions from all sources didn’t decrease quite as much, dropping anywhere from 13.4 to 15.7 percent. Environmental groups also warned that the current reductions aren’t guaranteed. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."