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: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example solution: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Example explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

Problem: Paragraph: The Democratic governor wants the nation's most populous state to contract with generic drug companies to make medications on its behalf so it could sell them to its nearly 40 million residents. The goal is to lower prices by increasing competition in the generic drug market, Newsom said. His proposal also would create a single market for drug pricing in California, with companies having to bid to sell their medicine at a uniform price. One expert said that piece would have the bigger impact. "Other countries control or negotiate the price of drugs, and if there is one state that could do it, it's California, which is the size of a country," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president of health policy for the Kaiser Family Foundation. "A drug company could walk away from Rhode Island. It's much harder to walk away from California." Lawmakers would have to approve the proposal before they could become law. A legislative leader in charge of reviewing the plan gave a tentative endorsement Thursday. "If Costco can have a Kirkland brand, why can't California have our own generic brand?" said Democratic Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula, an emergency room doctor from Fresno who chairs the House Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services. "I really do think there is quite a bit of merit in having us produce the medications." Priscilla VanderVeer, vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents brand-name drug companies, said she's waiting for more details from Newsom before commenting. A representative from the Association for Accessible Medicines, which represents generic drug manufacturers, did not respond to a request for comment. The drug plan is part of Newsom's budget proposal, which he must present to lawmakers by Friday. The state could have as much as a $7 billion surplus this year, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office. Newsom's office did not say how much the drug proposal would cost, prompting criticism from some Republican lawmakers who said the state should not compete with private companies. "When the state runs it, it costs more money," said Republican Assemblyman Devon Mathis, who's also on the health subcommittee. "The money is coming out of families' pockets paying all those crazy taxes." California law requires drug companies to report any price increases to the state. Generic drugs saw a three-year median increase of 37.6%, according to a report from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. That analysis was based on the list prices of the drugs and did not include discounts or rebates. But the report doesn't include generic drugs that decreased in price because companies are not required to report that. Nationally, generic drug prices have been decreasing overall, according to a report that AARP produced with the University of Minnesota. Supporters say California's generic drug label could help lower the cost of a common drug that has steadily increased in price insulin for diabetes patients. Three drug companies control most of the market for insulin. "Consumers would directly benefit if California contracted on its own to manufacture much-needed generic medications like insulin a drug that has been around for a century yet the price has gone up over tenfold in the last few decades," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California. Jon Roth, CEO of the California Pharmacists Association, said the state might be surprised, however, at how much it ends up charging for its own generic drugs because of factors beyond its control, including raw material shortages and disruptions in the supply chain. "There are other factors in the actual manufacturing that the state may not be able to escape," he said. While most Americans get generic prescriptions, they only account for a small part of the total drug spending in the U.S. That's because unlike the name-brand drug market, generics are very competitive, said Jeff Joyce, chairman of the Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics at USC's School of Pharmacy. "What he is proposing to do would help in specific cases, but it's not a panacea by any means," Joyce said. The proposal is another step in Newsom's effort to overhaul California's prescription drug market. Last year, in one of his first acts in office, Newsom ordered the state to take over the Medicaid program's prescription drug benefits, which affects 13 million people. Claim: California could be 1st state to sell own prescription drugs.
Solution: California could become the first state to make its own prescription drugs under a proposal announced Thursday by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who says it would "take the power out of the hands of greedy pharmaceutical companies."