TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Michigan concluded Wednesday it's in the public interest to deny the preliminary injunction sought by William Husel. The Columbus-area Mount Carmel Health System fired the intensive care doctor after concluding he ordered excessive painkillers for dozens of patients who died. Husel has pleaded not guilty in the resulting criminal case. His pending lawsuit against Mount Carmel's parent company, Trinity Health Corporation, and its insurer argues his ability to defend himself is hurt if they won't cover his legal costs in the criminal case as happened in dozens of related civil cases. The judge concluded the public interest supported denying the preliminary injunction "to protect THC's Catholic principles on end of life issues, to comport with public policy that liability insurance does not exist to relieve wrongdoers for intentional criminal conduct, and to fulfill the court's obligation to read the insurance contract by its plain and unambiguous terms." A spokeswoman for Mount Carmel said by email that it and Livonia, Michigan-based Trinity Health, are pleased with the decision and focusing on patient care. Husel's lawyer in the matter called the decision disappointing and accused those health care systems of misleading the public. "Mount Carmel and Trinity both know that Dr. Husel's care was entirely appropriate and did not cause harm to any patient, and they should be standing up for their employees and defending them against all baseless allegations," attorney Adam Ford of Ford O'Brien LLP said in an email. In a separate defamation lawsuit against Mount Carmel and Trinity, Husel contends the patients died because of their illnesses, not the drugs he ordered. Claim: Judge won't compel health system to fund doctor's defense.

SOLUTION: A federal judge declined for now to compel a Michigan-based health system to advance legal costs for a doctor's defense against murder charges in the deaths of 25 Ohio hospital patients.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The Huntsman Mental Health Institute will aim to provide research-based treatment and help fund the University of Utah Health's psychiatry department, according to a news release. The Huntsmans already have a major cancer research center in Utah that bears the family name. The late Jon Huntsman Sr. was the founder of a company that refines raw materials that go into thousands of products. His adult children said at a news conference that they hope the institute helps change the stigma and misperceptions about mental health. "Every family deals with mental health. We have either held the hand of somebody or had our hand held by somebody dealing with mental health," said Christena Huntsman Durham, vice chairwoman of the Huntsman Foundation, the Deseret News reported. "We are so excited to put a name and a face to it and start addressing real issues and stop the judgment." The donation, which will be given over 15 years, is the largest single gift ever given to the university, said University of Utah President Ruth V. Watkins. Claim: Huntsmans give $150M to start mental health institute.

SOLUTION: A new mental health institute funded by a $150 million donation from the influential Huntsman family will focus on researching the genetic causes of the illnesses and provide more treatment to college students and rural residents, the University of Utah announced Monday.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The FDA evaluates drugs without considering costs, which is why they are not discussed in this news release. We hope the FDA will also begin commenting on the projected cost of a drug and its cost-effectiveness. In this case, costs are very steep. An NBC.com story on the approval which we also reviewed, predicts the drug will cost $37,000 annually. It's unknown if Dupixent will be covered by health insurance. In terms of benefits, the release offers the following: "Overall, participants who received Dupixent achieved greater response, defined as clear or almost clear skin, and experienced a reduction in itch after 16 weeks of treatment." But readers are left to interpret on their own what "greater response" and "a reduction in itch" mean. The release would have been better if it had told readers how the improvement was measured and how many patients experienced improvement rather than using the term "overall." The release gets an acceptable rating in this category since it mentions that the drug can cause serious allergic reactions and eye problems including conjunctivitis (pinkeye) and keratitis (inflammation of the cornea). It also cautions that people with asthma shouldn't use the drug since it hasn't been tested for safety in these patients. The release should also have noted that regulators don't know if there are any long-term harms associated with Dupixent use. None of the trials exceeded 16 weeks. The release describes who was studied and for how long, and offers a bare-bones description of the types of studies: "The safety and efficacy of Dupixent were established in three placebo-controlled clinical trials with a total of 2,119 adult participants with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis not adequately controlled by topical medication(s)." The FDA doesn't provide a link to the studies or their titles and where they were published. The release would be more complete had that information been included. It would help journalists and people with eczema and would be a significant improvement to FDA releases. The release does not engage in disease-mongering. Instead it offers a clear description of what eczema is and what causes the condition. There is no mention of who funded the research leading to the FDA approval, although many readers will assume it was supported by the manufacturer Regeneron. The release gets a borderline satisfactory for mentioning topical corticosteroids as an alternative treatment for eczema but neglects to mention that other pharmaceuticals are also now available for treating it. Whether or not this medication will be covered by insurance is a huge concern. Its high cost will affect how many people can access this new drug. Its availability should have been addressed in the release. It's newsworthy whenever the FDA approves a new drug. This appears to be the first biologic, injectable treatment for eczema. The release does not use any unjustifiable language. Claim: FDA approves new eczema drug Dupixent

SOLUTION:
This news release from the FDA announces the agency's approval of a new drug, dupilumab (to be marketed as Dupixent), for treating eczema, or atopic dermatitis. It briefly describes the type of clinical trials leading to the approval and identifies the possible harms that might arise from use of this injectable drug. It omits, however, any measurements showing how effective the drug is, referring to benefits only in general terms. Some estimates suggest as many as 18 million Americans suffer from moderate-to-severe eczema and for them it is a miserable disease. A new medication that is potentially effective against this condition would therefore be welcomed. But the enormous cost of this drug, similar to others aimed at thwarting eczema, might play a major role in patient access to the treatment.