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 Input:
Paragraph: News outlets report the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says it was notified on Oct. 1 that a flight attendant had a confirmed case. The Mecklenburg County Health Department says it contacted 18 Charlotte-area passengers who were on the American Airlines flight Sept. 21 from San Francisco to Charlotte. Spokeswoman Rebecca Carter says those passengers have since been vaccinated. American Airlines released a statement saying it's in close contact with the CDC and public health officials and will coordinate with them on any required health and safety related measures. Hepatitis A is a liver disease caused by contaminated food or water. Claim: Flight attendant may have exposed passengers to Hepatitis A.

Ex Output:
Health officials in North Carolina say more than a dozen people may have been exposed to hepatitis A on a recent flight.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The story devotes its second paragraph to cost, including how that cost may differ depending on whether patients have insurance. Well done. This is a really close one. The story does a lot of things well here. It notes that, in one trial, there was no difference in the benefits between Xofluza and existing flu treatment drug oseltamivir (better known as Tamiflu). However, it does not actually quantify the benefits associated with Xofluza. Instead, the story states that it "may alleviate some symptoms and shorten the time patients feel sick." We approve of the cautious language used throughout the story, but we like to see quantified benefits in instances where the information is available. In this case, an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September reported that Xofluza reduced the "time to alleviation of symptoms" by a mean of 25-38 hours, compared to placebo (the difference depended on the age group of the patient). Ergo, a not satisfactory rating here. The story addresses this issue head on, earning it a solid satisfactory rating from us. One point that would have made it even stronger would have been to note that the company selling Xofluzawarns that pregnant women and nursing mothers may want to avoid the drug, as it is not known whether the drug may harm the fetus or if it would pass into breastmilk for nursing mothers. The story does a good job of describing the supporting evidence clearly and concisely. No disease mongering here. In fact, the story provides good context on the risks posed by influenza. The story incorporates input from two sources at the FDA, but the information appears to stem from an FDA statement. Information from pharmaceutical companies is clearly marked, but we really look for news stories to incorporate input from independent sources beyond what may be available in a news release. The story addresses the similarities (and differences) to other drugs that address flu symptoms, particularly oseltamivir (Tamiflu). The story notes that Xofluza has received FDA approval. As noted above, the drugs similarities and differences to existing pharmaceutical treatment options was laid out clearly. The news peg here was FDA's approval of the drug, which is also made clear. The work goes well beyond what you would find in any news release. We particularly applaud the story's discussion of viruses developing resistance to antiviral drugs. Claim: F.D.A. Approves New Drug for Flu

Ex Output:
This story is one of two we are reviewing that focuses on FDA's approval of a drug designed to speed patient recovery from flu symptoms (the second story is from ABC News). The drug is baloxavir marboxil, marketed under the trade name Xofluza. This New York Times story hits most of the points that we want to see in a story about a new drug. The criteria that we use at HealthNewsReview.org to review health-related news stories were not developed in a vacuum. Rather, these are the criteria we feel are essential to allow patients and health care providers to make informed decisions about diagnosis and treatment options. While we do ding it on a couple things, the story does not exaggerate the findings, and provides people with the fundamental details they need to be informed patients. We were especially pleased that this story did not perpetuate misinformation that's developed around this drug that is, that it could help reduce transmission of the virus. To date, there is no evidence to show that as a benefit.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The story didn't discuss costs. And cost is a significant issue here. The AP story, by comparison, reported that "colonoscopy costs vary widely but typically exceed $1,000." Adequate. The story said that almost 24% of Medicare enrollees in the study were re-examined within seven years "with no clear indication for the early repeated examination." One of the weak points in this story and in many of the stories we saw on this study, frankly was that, while harms or complications were mentioned, they were not defined nor quantified. What harms? And how often do they occur? This story had a quote that "I don't think we've educated [people] well enough" about the possible risks but the story itself didn't do so. The AP story, by comparison, at least mentioned "risks that occur more often with older patients, including complications from sedation, accidental performation of the colon and bleeding." Adequate job. Nice touch commenting on the geographic variations seen in the Medicare analysis as well. The focus of this story was the opposite of disease-mongering. The story used an American Cancer Society spokesman as an independent source. In the last line, the story at least mentioned other approaches to colon cancer screening. The availability of colonoscopies is not in question. The relative novelty of this study was made clear in the story. It's clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release. Claim: Significant Number of Medicare Patients Getting Too-Frequent Colonoscopies

Ex Output:
Its few shortcomings could have been overcome easily with a little more space: mentioning costs defining and taking a stab at quantifying harms. (Also fixing the typo in the final paragraph where colonoscopy was used when they meant colon cancer. We make 'em, too.) The story's interview quotes nailed the issue: Study author Goodwin "says the health community has been 'a little too good in terms of selling the message of screening' for cancer. 'There really is an excellent acceptance of the benefits of cancer screening in this country, but I don't think we've educated [people] well enough' about the possible risks." "Durado Brooks, director of prostate and colorectal cancers at the American Cancer Society says many physicians worry about missing a potential cancer and underestimate the risks of screening, which are even higher for older people with underlying health problems."