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: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission said seven other people were in critical condition among a total of 41 who were suffering from pneumonia caused by a "preliminarily determined new type of coronavirus" as of Friday. That was down from the earlier figure of 59. The others were in stable condition and at least two had been released from a hospital. The patient who died was identified as a 61-year-old man who had been hospitalized after suffering shortness of breath and severe pneumonia. The commission said the man, who died Thursday, also suffered from abdominal tumors and chronic liver disease and had been a frequent customer at a food market on Wuhan's outskirts linked to the majority of cases. China says the cause of the Wuhan outbreak remains unknown, but has sought to quash speculation that it could be a reappearance of the SARS epidemic, which killed hundreds in 2002 and 2003. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses, some of which cause the common cold. Others found in bats, camels and other animals have evolved into more severe illnesses. Common symptoms include a runny nose, headache, cough and fever. Shortness of breath, chills and body aches are associated with more dangerous kinds of coronaviruses, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. China's transport ministry says it plans additional measures to disinfect trains, planes and buses and prevent transmission of diseases during the 40-day travel rush centered on the Lunar New Year, also known as the Spring Festival, which falls this year on Jan. 25. The period began Friday and runs through Feb. 18. "The emergence of the epidemic may cause panic among people, especially in areas where people are concentrated during the Spring Festival travel period," the ministry's chief engineer, Wang Yang, told reporters at a news conference Thursday. "In order to further ensure the health of passengers, our ministry attaches great importance to the arrangements and deployment, and will focus on the disinfection monitoring and protection measures in areas with a large number of passenger travel volume, including transportation hubs, passenger stations and cargo hub plant stations," Wang said. Possible cases of the same illness have been reported in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan involving recent travelers to Wuhan. Health authorities elsewhere in China have yet to announce similar cases, despite the high population density around Wuhan and its role as a travel hub for central China. University of Hong Kong disease expert Yuen Kwok-yung was quoted by the city's official news agency as saying that the genetic makeup of the novel coronavirus was 80% similar to SARS as it had been found in bats, civet cats and humans. Yuen said that it was unclear whether the virus could further change to become more lethal, as the SARS virus had, but that Hong Kong had a robust system for detecting more severe problems among patients. "So we have to take every measure and closely monitor the situation," Yuen said, according to Radio Television Hong Kong. Claim: China reports 1st death from new type of coronavirus .

SOLUTION: Health authorities in a central Chinese city on Saturday reported the country's first death from a new type of coronavirus, as the government braced for the Lunar New Year travel boom amid concerns over a possible outbreak similar to that of the SARS virus in the early 2000s.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The news release includes information about costs. We would have liked a little more context. The release states: "The costs associated with home infusion were also consistently lower than services provided in a health care facility, with savings ranging between $1,928 and $2,974 per course of treatment." We need to know what percentage of savings that is per course of treatment. If the whole course costs $100,000, then saving $1,928 is a pretty small percentage. If the whole course is $10,000, than a savings of $1,928 looks more substantial. We found the news release skimmed over giving crucial numbers and metrics for benefits. Separate from the cost benefit to home infusion versus hospital or clinic infusion, the release should have given us some numbers for safety. Here is what the release stated (emphasis ours): "The research showed that patients receiving intravenous therapy at home had as good or better clinical outcomes as those patients who received the same therapy in a traditional health care setting. In addition, patients overwhelmingly preferred receiving their infusion therapies at home, reporting fewer disruptions in personal schedules and responsibilities. We need numbers to demonstrate how "as good" the clinical outcomes were. We need numbers to represent "overwhelmingly preferred." By what percentage did what number of patients demonstrate preference? This is where the release could have taken some quantitative data from the study. The word "harms" does not appear in the news release. During intravenous infusions there are complications that may arise. The release does not mention harm, even to dismiss the probability as rare. The study being reported is a systematic literature review that only considered 13 prior studies. The release does not address the limitations of a literature review or give us the total number of patients represented by the 13 studies. Only 5 of the 13 studies used in the analysis addressed outcomes. One had no comparison group ("However, no adjustment for confounders was performed, and higher OPAT success rates were likely due to purposeful selection of younger, healthier patients for OPAT therapy," according to the published study). In another study, "IPAT patients were selected from a time period during which OPAT was not available for any patients, minimizing selection bias by the matching fact." In any case, less than half of the studies looked at outcome data and those that did involved different diseases from different time periods, some had control groups and some did not. We don't think the evidence is strong enough to suggest outcomes were improved. The bias inherent in CVS employees culling the studies is also concerning. A better description of the review's search and selection process may have helped allay any concerns about studies being cherry-picked. There is no disease mongering. The release is clear that the study was done by the CVS Health Research Institute. Since this is a news release from a profit-making company that operates directly to sell services under study, we hope the readers quickly understand there is an inherent conflict. This is the equivalent of a Coca Cola study about the benefits of drinking their product. The release explains the alternatives of clinic or hospital infusion compared to home infusion. Home infusion services are widely available. Their reimbursement is not widely available. The release says "clinical outcomes and quality of care have not previously been systematically evaluated." The release doesn't rely on any unreasonable or unjustified language. However, we do not think the news release proves the words used in the headline that say "Home Infusion Care Improves Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life While Reducing Overall Costs." Based on a literature review, which does not randomize people into apples-to-apples comparison, you cannot claim to show better outcomes. The release does not offer any quantified benefits to support medical outcomes and doesn't provide quantified information about quality of life improvement. The fact that patients prefer home infusion to travel to a clinic is not by itself a proof that their lives have been improved. As we wrote in the benefits section above we are not given numbers to prove by what amount patients prefer home infusion. Claim: CVS Health Research Institute Study Shows that Home Infusion Care Improves Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life While Reducing Overall Costs

SOLUTION: This news release describes the cost savings and safety of home infusion services from 13 previously published studies compared with infusion services at a clinic or hospital. Home infusion appears safe and clinically effective while saving money in the studies reviewed, but the release does not address limits in the review. We aren't given any numbers to back up the claims that clinical outcomes were equal and that patients preferred the home setting. The release notes that CVS has a home infusion businessCoramso at least they make this transparent. We applaud CVS for attempting to quantify the cost savings and other potential benefits of the service and the claim that there are advantages are likely valid but some context/background from other, independent studies would be helpful. Besides the lack of quantification, the release doesn't delve into the potential risks from using the home infusion service. Treatments for chronic diseases, which often require drugs administered through infusion, are one of the fastest growing costs in the US health care system. If patients can be served at home, rather than in outpatient clinics or hospitals, it saves both money and time. But outcomes studies, which compare outcomes and safety between locations, are essential to judging whether home infusion is equal to clinic or hospital infusion. This release does not go far enough with numbers to quantify benefits and risks. We also see that CVS has a conflict of interest, because they have a business arm, Coram, that sells home infusion services. It appears this release (and study) are getting attention just as Congress is "discussing how to implement a comprehensive home infusion benefit for Medicare beneficiaries."

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The story provided several estimates for the cost of gastric banding; it also discussed insurance coverage, i.e. that the procedure was not always covered by insurance. While the story mentioned weight loss, health improvement, and longer life, it failed to provide quantitative estimates for these. The story provided quantitative information on the disease reduction obtained with the use of this device in individuals with type II diabetes. Although the story did mention that weight loss is slower with gastric banding than with gastric bypass, itfailed to provide quantitative information about the amount or rate of weight loss attained with banding. The story should also have mentioned that long-term followup finds for those whose diabetes resolves following gastric banding, about half re-develop diabetes at 10 years. The story mentioned weight regain as well as some of the side effects that occur with the use of this device. For a more complete discussion, it should have included information about how frequently these occur. When discussing the effect of gastric banding on type II diabetes, the story mentioned the research about the use of this device for this population. It mentioned the evidence about safety and effectiveness and where it had been published. As for the impact of the banding procedure on weight, the story neglected to include information on the average weight loss seen but did include several patient anecdotes. However the story was more focused on the marketing strategies for this device rather than the health claims per se. The story did not engage in disease mongering. The story included primary quotes from clinicians, industry spokespersons, and individuals who had undergone gastric banding. The story included a pretty comprehensive comparison between gastric banding and gastric bypass, another type of weight loss surgery. It only mentioned diet and exercise in passing and failed to mention medication that can be used for weight loss. The story provided a very complete discussion about the various venues at which gastric banding was available. The story provided a pretty complete history of the use of gastric banding. Does not rely on a press release Claim: Industry Giants Push Obesity Surgery

SOLUTION:
This is an interesting and informative piece about the utility and the marketing of gastric banding, a type of weight loss surgery. It covered the marketing of this medical device in great detail. Consumers reading this piece would have a much better sense of the recent history of gastric banding and the strong direct-to-consumer marketing push that is happening now. Providing this information enables readers to recognize the market forces at work. And while the story was really less about helping people make a decision about whether this was an appropriate procedure for them to undergo, it would certainly arm a consumer with questions to pursue if they were considering this operation. Overall, a very well done story.