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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Plaintiffs Russell Geissler, Bernard Bagley and Willie James Jackson filed a lawsuit in 2017 against the Department of Corrections over a lack of treatment for hepatitis C. A proposed class-action settlement was submitted after the lawsuit was filed. "This is a major step toward eliminating a point source for hepatitis C," class counsel Reuben Guttman, with the law firm Guttman, Buschner & Brooks, said in a press release. Judge Margaret Seymour gave the proposed settlement the preliminary approval, news outlets reported. Identifying and treating inmates with hepatitis C will cost between $4,000 and $15,000 per person, depending on the individual's health. The agency began testing current and former inmates in 2018. The department also received $10 million in its 2019-2020 budget to cover drugs, staffing, equipment and other expenses related to the testing and treatment for hepatitis C. Testing for all 18,125 South Carolina inmates is on schedule to be completed by June. The agency's director, Bryan Stirling, said this a big step toward providing inmates with a safe environment. "We know that about 85% of inmates return to society within five years, and this will save medical treatment costs for taxpayers in the long run," Stirling said. Hepatitis C is a viral infection that is spread through exposure to blood or blood products, commonly through sharing needles during intravenous drug use. Claim: Mandated hep C treatment for SC inmates gets initial consent.
[EX A]: A federal judge granted preliminary approval Tuesday of a proposed settlement mandating testing and treatment for hepatitis C of all inmates in South Carolina correction facilities.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Two people who had travelled from Congo died in Uganda last week, the World Health Organization said. A three-year-old boy who was sent back to Congo after testing positive for the disease died at the weekend, Congo's health ministry said. At least another 1,411 people have died in Congo since August in the second worst outbreak of the disease on record. "Happy to inform you all that we got clearance from both Uganda National Council for Science and Technology and National Drug Authority to bring in the Therapeutic treatment for #Ebola patients in the country," Uganda's Health Minister, Jane Ruth Aceng, said on Twitter. The treatments approved for shipment to Uganda were Mapp Biopharmaceutical's ZMapp, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc's REGN-EB3 and Remdesivir, made by Gilead Sciences, said WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic. "The protocols for the fourth being submitted. Logistics underway with MSF support for importation of a few courses about 10 each," he added in an email. The U.N. health agency has said there have so far been no known cases of Ebola spreading between people in Uganda - all recorded patients had travelled in from Congo. Four experimental therapeutic treatments are already being used in Congo, it added. On Friday, a WHO panel decided not to declare an international emergency over Congo's Ebola outbreak despite its spread to Uganda, saying such a declaration could cause too much economic harm. "Obviously, the crisis is far from over," Mark Green, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), told a news conference in Nairobi. Health workers and people who came in contact with infected people began receiving a Merck experimental vaccine in Uganda on Saturday. (This story corrects name of drug in 5th paragraph to REGN-EB3, not Regeneron). Claim: Uganda clears three experimental Ebola treatments, watches for spread.
[EX A]: Health workers have got the all-clear to use three experimental Ebola treatments in Uganda, a week after the deadly disease spread over the border from Democratic Republic of Congo, authorities said on Tuesday.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: No mention of the cost of treatment for women outside clinical trials. Some quantitative benefit mentioned of taking hormone therapy for chemoprevention. Incomplete discussion of reduced rate of side effects in raloxifene group. Mentions harms of hormone therapy, such as an increased risk of blood clots and uterine cancers. Does not mention that raloxifene, like tamoxifen, has bothersome side effects such as hot flashes and vaginal discharge, which are reported as comparable and mild to moderate in the NCI press release of the initial results of this trial. Mentions that the STAR trial was a 5-year trial, but not that is was unblinded early (around year 4) due to positive side effect profile of raloxifene. Mentions that 19,747 women were randomized to either raloxifene or tamoxifen and provides quantitative evidence of improved risk of blood clots or uterine cancers, however, both of those results were just shy of statistical significance, which is not mentioned in the article or in NCI press materials. (Source ACS: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Raloxifene_as_Good_as_Tamoxifen_to_Prevent_Breast_Cancer.asp) In addition, raloxifene did not appear to raise the risk of cataracts, which tamoxifen does appear to do. That difference was statistically significant. The story mentions equivalent comparison with tamoxifen in preventing invasive breast cancer, however, tamoxifen protected women better from non-invasive breast cancer such as DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) and LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ). " No evidence of disease mongering. Mentions that this drug is for post-menopausal women at higher than average lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. This study was partially funded by Eli Lilly. There is a a lot of Eli Lilly promotional information in this story. Of course, Indianapolis is the home of Eli Lilly. No attempt and independent corroboration with other breast cancer researchers. There was not much effort to get opinions on the study from outside sources. A lead investigator of the Eli Lilly-funded study and the president of science and technology at Eli Lilly are not unbiased sources. The story discusses the STAR trial, which compared current hormone treatment, tamoxifen, with raloxifene. It should be noted that the results here are initial findings after 4 years of raloxifene. The story could have done a better job in explaining that tamoxifen is usually taken for 5 years and there is much more long-term clinical data on safety and efficacy for this drug. It's clear form the story that raloxifene is currently available for use in post-menopausal women to prevent osteoporosis. What isn't clear is that use in chemoprevention would be an off-label use. This type of hormone therapy should be used in estrogen-receptor positive, post-menopausal women. Notes that use of Raloxifene (Evista) as chemoprevention is still in the clinical trial phase and that there are plans to file for FDA approval for use in preventing and treating breast cancer. Evista is already approved to prevent osteoporosis. We can't judge if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. However, there is certainly a lot of Eli Lilly promotional information in this story. And Indianapolis is the home of Eli Lilly. Claim: Lilly buoyed by findings on Evista
[EX A]:
This story reports the initial results of the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene Trial (STAR) for estrogen-receptor positive women at high risk of developing breast cancer. This study was partially funded by Eli Lilly, though this is not mentioned, and the results here are presented as a financial boon for the company. There is less emphasis on the accuracy and interpretation of the trial from a women's health perspective. There is also no attempt at corroboration with breast cancer researchers not affiliated with the trial: A lead investigator of the study (partially supported by Eli Lilly) and the president of science and technology at Eli Lilly are not unbiased sources. Costs were not mentioned. The story mentioned that 19,747 women were randomized to either raloxifene or tamoxifen and provides quantitative evidence of improved risk of blood clots or uterine cancers, however, both of those results were just shy of statistical significance, which is not mentioned in the article or in NCI press materials. (Source ACS: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Raloxifene_as_Good_as_Tamoxifen_to_Prevent_Breast_Cancer.asp) In addition, raloxifene did not appear to raise the risk of cataracts, which tamoxifen does appear to do. That difference was statistically significant. The story didn't mention this. The story mentions equivalent comparison with tamoxifen in preventing invasive breast cancer, however, tamoxifen protected women better from non-invasive breast cancer such as DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) and LCIS (lobular carcinoma in situ). And these conditions are being diagnosed much more frequently these days.