Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Ex Input:
There was no discussion of costs. Costs would include treating the double digit rates of incontinence and erectile dysfunction in these younger men who do have surgery. The surgery may help them live longer, but many, especially since younger at time of surgery, live decades with these potential harms and folllowup costs of the surgical choice. This should get at least a line in such stories. While describing some of the differences observed in general terms without quantification, the story provided absolute percentage of men dying from prostate cancer in the two study groups. The story then went on to explain that the difference was in the men who were less 65 years of age at the time of diagnosis. The story would have been better if it had more clearly explained this important caveat about the benefit seen. The potential harms associated with various approaches to treating prostate cancer as well as the increased risk of prostate cancer progression and death seen in the cohort of men who followed the watchful waiting approach were discussed. The story did a laudable job of providing information about the study reported on including the fact that the results most recently published basically expand the timeframe of followup on these men which have previously been published. It provided insight about the number of men involved in the study, how their prostate cancer was detected and that the men had been randomly assigned to their treatment group. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Two clinicians who were not involved in the study provided quotes which were used in the story. The story included a list of the commonly available treatment options for early stage prostate cancer. But we must give an unsatisfactory score because the story included a factually incorrect statement indicating that watchful waiting is synonymous with active surveillance. It is not. The story went on to misinform readers by indicating "watchful waiting is often recommended when a man is not expected to die of the cancer" by failing to complete the thought by explaining that the reason they are not expected to die of the cancer is because their advanced age makes it unlikely that the cancer will have sufficient time to progress to lethality OR because they have other diseases from which they are likely to succumb before there is time for the prostate cancer to be deadly. An important caveat about how the prostate cancer in the study differed from the way in which prostate cancer is most commonly detected today in the US was explained. The story provided a reasonable view of the novelty of the treatment options detailed in the study along with the critically important caveat that the majority of the men in the study had their prostate cancer first detected at a later state than is seen with the current screening practices in the US. The story did not rely on a news release.

Ex Output:
Aggressive Treatment May Be Beneficial for Early Prostate Cancer

Ex Input:
The study could scratch one item off a long list of complications plaguing President Barack Obama's launch of his sweeping health care law, also known as Obamacare, which kicked in January 1. About half of U.S. states have opted to expand Medicaid eligibility to poor Americans under the law, raising concerns those states could attract low-income people from elsewhere, increasing the burden on state budgets. "This is known as the welfare magnet hypothesis," according to the study from the Harvard School of Public Health, which said its research into previous state medical aid expansions "found no evidence of significant migration effects." The Harvard study used U.S. migration data from 1998 to 2012 to focus on the impact of medical insurance expansions in Arizona, Maine, New York, and also Massachusetts - whose own health care reforms served as a model for the Affordable Care Act. "These results suggest that migration will not be a common way for people to obtain Medicaid coverage under the current expansion and that interstate migration is not likely to be a significant source of costs for states choosing to expand their programs," according to the study. "Our findings are relevant for forecasting the cost and coverage consequences of states' decisions about expanding Medicaid eligibility," it said, noting four states - New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Utah - are still considering whether to expand Medicaid under the law. Arguments in favor of expanding Medicaid eligibility have tended to focus on improving access to medical care for the poor and bringing in federal dollars to bolster states' social programs, while counterarguments have focused on the potential unintended costs to state budgets. A joint Harvard-MIT study released last week focusing on Oregon's expanded Medicaid program, for example, showed adults covered by Medicaid used emergency rooms 40 percent more than those in similar circumstances who are uninsured. MIT led another study in 2013 focusing on Oregon that showed "Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years" but "did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain." The latest Harvard findings come after a rocky start for the Affordable Care Act, which relies on a website that suffered repeated crashes, glitches, and security concerns that hampered enrollment. After some fixes, more than 2 million people have been able to enroll for coverage under the law, the most sweeping social program since the 1960s. President Obama has also been criticized for telling Americans they would be able to keep their old insurance plans under the new law if they wanted to - an assertion that turned out to be false in many cases. The law was passed in 2010 to help millions of uninsured and under-insured Americans, but Republicans have opposed the reform as an unwarranted expansion of the federal government and say it is too costly and eliminates healthcare choices for many.

Ex Output:
Americans unlikely to move to get better Medicaid benefits: study.

Ex Input:
Mike Hunter said the New Jersey-based company and its subsidiaries, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, created a public nuisance by launching a "cunning, cynical and deceitful" marketing campaign that overstated the benefits of opioid drugs for treating chronic pain and understated the risk of addiction. "There was a simple reason for the crisis: greed," Hunter said. "The greed of the pharmaceutical companies caused the crisis." After closing arguments, Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman asked both sides to present written summaries of their cases by July 31 and said that he would then take about a month to issue his ruling. Oklahoma's case is being closely watched because it's the first state case to proceed to trial. It could help shape negotiations over roughly 1,500 similar lawsuits filed by state, local and tribal governments that have been consolidated before a federal judge in Ohio. Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson argued they participated in a lawful and strictly regulated industry and that their marketed products represented only a tiny fraction of the opioids used in Oklahoma. Oklahoma's attorneys have pointed out that two former Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries, Noramco and Tasmanian Alkaloids, produced much of the raw opium that is used by other manufacturers to produce the drugs. Larry Ottaway, an attorney for the company, said opioid drugs serve a critical health need to address chronic pain that affects thousands of Oklahomans every day. "This problem of untreated chronic pain afflicts people here in Oklahoma," Ottaway said. "These drugs help these patients function." During his closing argument, Ottaway played brief clips from a half-dozen Oklahoma doctors who testified about the desperate need some of their patients have to deal with chronic pain. "I trust you to do the right thing," Ottaway told the judge. "I trust you like I trust these Oklahoma doctors, and I think you should trust them as well." Attorneys for Oklahoma also outlined a plan developed by state mental health and addiction specialists to abate the opioid crisis that would range between $12.6 billion for 20 years or $17.5 billion over 30 years. Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson say that estimate is wildly overinflated. Included in the abatement estimate is a need for the state of Oklahoma to hire 1,734 new employees at a cost of about $123 million each year, Ottaway said. "The state's plan is simply untenable," he said. "It seeks billions of dollars for services already being provided." Before the start of the trial on May 28, Oklahoma reached a $270 million settlement with Oxycontin-maker Purdue Pharma and an $85 million deal with Israeli-owned Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ___ Follow Sean Murphy at www.twitter.com/apseanmurphy ___ This version corrects the spelling of the last name of Johnson & Johnson attorney Larry Ottaway.

Ex Output:
Oklahoma AG calls company 'kingpin' in state's opioid crisis.