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.
One example is below.
Q: 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
A: 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.
Rationale: 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.
Q: Paragraph: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd's rival migraine headache preventer is excluded on one list and patients can pay more for it in some cases on a second list, the note said. As with rival PBMs Express Scripts and CVS Health Corp, OptumRx's lists of covered drugs, or formularies, cover tens of millions of consumers who receive their healthcare from employers and health insurers. About 39 million Americans suffer from migraine headaches, according to the Migraine Research Foundation, and global migraine drug sales could reach $8.7 billion by 2026, according to analytics firm GlobalData. OptumRx's decision secures easier access to customers for Lilly's Emgality at all three of the biggest PBMs - including CVS and Express Scripts - and gives Amgen's Aimovig a leg up after CVS decided not to include it on its preferred drug list. Teva's Ajovy only has preferred status at CVS, while Amgen also has it at Express Scripts, part of Cigna Corp. "We are pleased that all three companies have chosen Emgality to be one of the preferred medications, making it accessible to even more patients suffering from migraine," Lilly said in an emailed statement. Inclusion on a preferred drugs list by the largest PBMs and health insurers is critically important for sales of new medicines. Increasingly, PBMs are choosing a subset of treatments for their coverage list when there are multiple treatments that are considered equivalent. The three treatments, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last year, belong to a class of drugs called CGRP inhibitors that have proven effective in helping to prevent migraines. A Teva spokeswoman said the company is committed to increasing access to Ajovy regardless of formulary decisions and is still offering discounts that allow patients to pay nothing in some cases, regardless of insurance. "Since Ajovy injection launched in September, we have experienced strong demand and steady growth, and we continue discussions with payers," the spokeswoman said. An Amgen spokeswoman said that the company was pleased with the decision and is committed to ensuring affordable access to its drug. Amgen, which shares Aimovig U.S. revenue with Novartis AG, earlier this week reported fourth-quarter sales of $95 million, nearly doubling Wall Street estimates. The OptumRx decision becomes effective Feb. 1. The OptumRx select formulary relegates Teva's drug to a lower access level that would typically require a higher out-of-pocket cost, it said. PBMs typically extract discounts from drugmakers in return for favorable placement on their preferred list of covered drugs, such as through a low co-payment, or coinsurance payment, for their members. All three migraine drugs have a list price of $575 a month, or $6,900 a year. Those prices do not reflect the rebates and discounts to PBMs, who design and negotiate benefits for employers and insurers. All three drugmakers are providing a limited duration supply of the new drugs at no cost directly to patients in addition to other assistance programs. Amgen's Aimovig was first-to-market from the new class. But the rivals from Teva and Lilly followed soon after. The three large PBMs together cover the majority of the more than 150 million Americans who receive benefits through their employers. Their clients, including insurers and corporations, may choose not to follow a PBM's recommendations on coverage, but that typically would cost more. Amgen shares were off 28 cents at $186.63, Lilly was up nearly 1 percent at $120.90 and Teva shares traded in New York were down nearly 1 percent at $19.69. Claim: Exclusive: Top U.S. insurer to cover Amgen, Eli Lilly migraine drugs, exclude Teva.
A:
A top U.S. pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) owned by UnitedHealth Group Inc has included new migraine drugs from Amgen Inc and Eli Lilly and Co as preferred treatments on its lists of covered drugs, according to an OptumRx client note viewed by Reuters.