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.

Paragraph: The story focused on costs, including information about the relative cost comparison between what are called "open" surgeries and those done laparoscopically (with a thin flexible tube.) The release summarized how minimally invasive techniques reduced the length of hospital stay and complication rates for patients. "Researchers also found that, on average, the minimally invasive approach reduced length of hospital stay by approximately two days, and open operations were more than $9,000 more expensive than minimally invasive procedures. The researchers also found that laparoscopic procedures were better for patients in terms of fewer complications. Laparoscopic anti-reflux operations were less likely to result in postoperative blood clots, wound complications, surgical site infection, esophageal perforation (which can be life threatening), bleeding, cardiac failure, and death." We rate this, but just barely, for citing cost differences between the two types of surgery and the average reduction in the number of days a patient must remain hospitalized. We do wish the release had delved more into the specifics of reduced complications. How common were the surgical complications in each surgical method? The release names complications associated with both types of surgery for GERD, while stating that patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures encountered fewer of them: "postoperative blood clots, wound complications, surgical site infection, esophageal perforation (which can be life threatening), bleeding, cardiac failure, and death." The news release gave details about how the study examined records of about 75,000 patients from 1,000 hospitals to compare outcomes in the records for open vs. the minimally invasive laparoscopic surgeries. That's all to the good. However, the news release didn't mention any of the study's limitations. The key one is that this is a retrospective, observational review of records that isn't capable of supporting cause and effect statements such as the minimally invasive approach "reduced length of hospital stay by approximately two days." Nor should this kind of evidence be used as the basis for statements such as laparoscopic procedures "were better for patients" and "should be the standard of care." Patients receiving open vs. laparascopic procedures could differ in unknown ways, which is why the superiority of one approach over the other should ideally be established by a prospective, randomized controlled trial. There were other limitations outlined in the journal article that were not mentioned in the release. Because the NIS database doesn't link to hospital records, researchers weren't able to track and measure outcomes "including complications, readmission, and mortality, occurring after the initial hospital discharge." The researchers were also unable to determine which open surgeries were "re-dos" of previous surgeries. The potential for errors in coding which procedures were used was also cited as a possible limitation. There was no disease mongering. The release also provided useful context on the prevalence of GERD and further specified that smaller group of patients, from the many heartburn suffers, might be candidates for the surgery. Well done. The release does not list any funding source for the research and the published study notes that authors had "nothing to disclose." We'll rate this not applicable since this is an examination of existing data, and there may have been no additional outside funding. The news release does a good job here. It compares different surgical methods and it also names alternatives for treating GERD such as medications and changes in the diet. It also states which group of patients the surgery is aimed at: "Anti-reflux surgery should be considered in patients who do not achieve complete control of their symptoms [regurgitation or cough] with medications; who do not want to take medications for the rest of their lives; or who experience complications of medical therapy." It's clear from the release that both methods of surgery have been widely available nationally and the outcomes of 75,000 surgeries were tracked by the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. The release also notes that "urban academic or teaching hospitals" perform laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery more often than "open" procedures, 54.4 percent versus 45.6 percent. And it recommends that anti-reflux surgery should be performed laparoscopically in specialized centers. The news release was not about a novel procedure and made no claim of novelty. However, this isn't the first study to examine laparoscopic vs. open surgery. For example, the British Journal of Surgery published results of a randomized trial of the two methods and the Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology published research on long-term outcomes following laparoscopic and open procedures for GERD. We did not observe any unjustifiable language. Claim: Laparoscopic anti-reflux operation for GERD linked to fewer postoperative complications
A new study by the American College of Surgeons, a professional organization, compared records for 75,000 patients who underwent surgery for GERD, or gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease. The study looked at two different surgical procedures and found the less invasive one seemed equally effective, but kept patients in the hospital a shorter time with fewer complications. The news release did a good job of discussing surgical alternatives and costs, which were estimated to be $9,000 lower for the less invasive laparoscopic procedure. The release would have been better had it spelled out some of the study limitations, the key one being that a retrospective, observational review of hospital records as this study was isn't capable of supporting the cause and effect statements sprinkled throughout the release. Millions of Americans complain of occasional heartburn, sometimes called a burning sensation in the throat from food coming back up from the stomach. But some estimates are that about 20 percent of US adults fit the definition of GERD, which means they suffer symptoms at least every week. If patients consider a surgical fix, this study shows that a less-invasive procedure could reduce their complications and shorten their hospital stay. It's hard to pin down stats on GERD prevalence. A 2014 review of 16 epidemiological studies of GERD prevalence published in the journal Gut suggest GERD prevalence ranges from "18.1%-27.8% in North America, 8.8%-25.9% in Europe, 2.5%-7.8% in East Asia, 8.7%-33.1% in the Middle East, 11.6% in Australia and 23.0% in South America."

Paragraph: When President Pierre Nkurunziza hands over power, it could be the first truly peaceful transfer of authority in the East African nation since independence in 1962. But the coronavirus poses a threat to the May 20 vote. Burundi has kicked out World Health Organization workers after concerns were raised. The WHO Africa director messaged the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chief about political rallies the day that Burundi's campaigning launched and images of crowds circulated online. Authorities have been accused by critics of downplaying the pandemic and citing divine protection. But the government appears to be using virus measures to limit election observers, warning the East African regional bloc on May 8 that arriving foreigners face a 14-day quarantine. More than the virus, however, it's the fear of violence that weighs on many of the more than 5 million people eligible to vote. Government agents have been accused of harassing the main opposition party, the CNL, whose leader Agathon Rwasa is believed to be in a close race with Nkurunziza's chosen successor in the ruling CNDD-FDD, Evariste Ndayishimiye. More than 145 CNL members have been arrested since campaigning began on April 27, according to SOS Medias Burundi, a group of independent journalists. Police spokesman Pierre Nkurikiye has accused Rwasa of making "incendiary and defamatory" remarks and inciting revolt. Rwasa, the deputy parliament speaker, has drawn large crowds despite the risks of openly supporting him, according to an online group of activists known as i-Burundi. The group worries that a rigged election could spark the kind of street demonstrations that marked the previous vote in 2015. "The ruling party was hoping to use this post-Nkurunziza election to gain a semblance of legitimacy, but given what's happening we might end up with more violence," i-Burundi said in an interview. "People want change. ... But the ruling party has the incumbent advantage and controls the electoral process." Rwasa told The Associated Press he feels it's important not to boycott the election even if the outcome is not expected to be fair. "Everything has its right time," he said. "Right now, it is not the time to give up and abandon our people." Ndayishimiye, a retired general, would be a weak president because he will be a front for Nkurunziza and other powerful ruling party members, said David Gakunzi, a Burundian political analyst: "He consults but he will fear to take independent decisions." Ndayishimiye fought alongside Nkurunziza as a rebel in the civil war from 1993 to 2005 that killed about 300,000 people. Nkurunziza was chosen by lawmakers to be president during the peace process known as the Arusha Accords, which specified that a president's term can be renewed only once. But Nkurunziza, who won a second term in 2010, said he was eligible for a third term in 2015 because he had not been chosen the first time by universal suffrage. The deadly turmoil that followed badly damaged ties with the international community, and Burundi became the first country to leave the International Criminal Court after it started investigating allegations of abuses. The U.N. human rights office reported more than 300 extrajudicial killings and was kicked out of the country. Nkurunziza survived a coup attempt shortly after the 2015 vote while traveling in Tanzania and has left Burundi only once since then. Meanwhile international donors have cut support, leaving the government struggling. It has ordered citizens to pay for the upcoming vote. Many Burundians were surprised when the president announced in 2018 that he was serving his last term. Skepticism persists. The government has approved legislation that bestows upon Nkurunziza the title of "paramount leader" after he steps down. "It's hard to know what's going to happen ... Nkurunziza has a track record of being quite unpredictable," said researcher Lane Hartill of the Burundi Human Rights Initiative. "Both the ruling party and the main opposition party, the CNL, are convinced their candidates are going to win the presidential election. It's telling, though, that government officials continue to arrest large numbers of CNL members." Even some senior members of the ruling party are tired of rights violations and the cratering economy but are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs or being killed, Hartill said. Burundi's government has denied allegations it targets its people, calling them malicious propaganda by dissidents. Memories of the 2015 violence are still raw. Jean Baptiste Bakunzi said he remains traumatized by his brother's death at the hands of the police and the Imbonerakure, a militarized youth group associated with the ruling party. His brother, accused of participating in anti-government activities, "knelt down and begged them to save his life," Bakunzi said. "Instead, one policeman pulled the trigger and shot him dead," he said. "Whoever opposes the ruling party becomes an enemy even today." The violence has dimmed hopes for those outside Burundi who will not be able to vote. Over 330,000 refugees are sheltering in Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Congo, according to U.N. figures. "These elections will not bring hope for us because we have lost so much," said Solange Teta, a refugee in Rwanda. "The ruling party candidate cannot alleviate our suffering." Sporadic violence persists. Police said two people were killed and eight wounded in a grenade attack Sunday on a bar in Bujumbura that's a popular hangout for ruling party supporters. Opposition supporters worry the security services may retaliate. Charles Nditije, a former government minister who lives in exile, described the election as a "joke," calling the polls a formality aimed at installing Nkurunziza's chosen successor. "What Burundians want now is anything that can bring to (an) end the reign of CNDD-FDD. But the ruling (party) candidate will fight tooth and nail to win fraudulently and set another round of crisis," he said. Hartill, the Burundi researcher, said disputed election results could put the country back on edge. The big question, he said, is whether the opposition leader will "say enough is enough." ___ Ssuuna reported from Kigali, Rwanda. Eloge Willy Kaneza in Nairobi, Kenya, contributed. Claim: Burundi defies COVID-19 for election ending a bloody rule.
Burundi is pushing ahead with an election on Wednesday that will end the president's divisive and bloody 15-year rule.

Paragraph: The state Task Force on Health Care Coverage For All of Maine has raised about $7,000 of the roughly $9,000 needed for its work. Groups and individuals who donate must state they didn't give to influence the study or legislative action. Some donors gave $10 while non-profit Maine Community Health Options gave $500. Legislative leaders said the task force needs to raise the remaining money by June 30 to continue its work. The task force is charged with proposing a universal health care system administered by state government or a contracted company. Individuals must be able to choose between the public option and private insurance coverage. Claim: Doctors, Mainers fund universal health care task force.
A Maine commission tasked with proposing a publicly financed health care system is being funded by doctors, medical groups and residents.