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.

Paragraph: There were nearly 1,000 drug-related deaths in Scotland last year. Correct, there were 934 registered in 2017. The UK has the highest death rate in the EU from drugs. Estonia had the highest rate of drug-related deaths per million people aged 15 to 64 in the EU, based on research using data from 2015 and 2016. The UK placed joint-third alongside Ireland. Scotland's drug-related death rate is the highest in the EU. Correct if you compare Scotland to a league table of EU sovereign countries. This is based on a comparison of the drug-related death rate per million people aged 15 to 64 in 2015 and 2016. Claim 1 of 4 Claim: Scotland's drug-related death rate is the highest in the EU.
Correct if you compare Scotland to a league table of EU sovereign countries. This is based on a comparison of the drug-related death rate per million people aged 15 to 64 in 2015 and 2016.

Paragraph: Mentions cost for one year of Herceptin as $40,000-$50,000. Mentions quantitative benefit of 9 weeks of Herceptin vs. no Herceptin with certain chemotherapy. Also, while no women in the Herceptin group had cardiac failure at 3 years, the follow-up period may not be long-enough to determine the effects of chemotherapy and Herceptin on the heart. Mentions potential harms of Herceptin on the heart, especially when given after certain chemotherapy. The story does not mention that there were side effects with certain chemotherapy drugs and doses needed to be decreased during the course of the trial. One aspect of this trial focused on randomization of women with Her2/neu overexpression to 9 weeks of Herceptin or no Herceptin immediately following breast cancer surgery. The drug was given in conjunction with certain types of chemotherapy, but before radiation and chemotherapy regimens known to damage the heart. The journalist states the Herceptin was given "prior to chemotherapy", which is not completely accurate. There is an adequate mention of the study design and discussion of disease-free survival at 3 years follow-up. Good job putting the results into context of other trials, and into context of how this may or may not change providers' practice. The story could have better stated the limitations of analysis for such a small subgroup 116 in each arm. Appropriately discusses the percentage of women who are eligible for Herceptin due to overexpression of HER2/neu. The story would have been helped by some context for the risk these women face. As Herceptin is used earlier and earlier these women have less to gain because they have less risk to begin with. Relative risk reductions may be very high but the absolute is not as big. Sources in addition to study authors are cited. No mention that this trial was funded in part by pharmaceutical companies. Some study investigators also receive research funding drug companies. Other doctors cited express caution about the early results of Herceptin studies, so there is some balance to the piece. The women in this trial had undergone breast cancer surgery and those with ER+ tumors were taking Tamoxifen. This is not explicitly mentioned, only that treatment took place following surgery. Still OK. Herceptin is only FDA approved to treat advanced breast cancer, but is used in clinical trials in early-stage breast cancer. This is not mentioned in the story. Novel use of Herceptin for short-term treatment prior to anthracycline chemotherapy. No evidence that this story relies on a press release. Claim: Short stint of Herceptin holds promise for breast cancer
This story discusses the results of a recent study involving women with high-risk early breast cancer (node positive or >2cm, age younger than 66 there were 25 year olds on the trial). One aspect of this trial focused on the short-term use of Herceptin with chemotherapy. Women with overexpression of the HER2/neu gene, as measured by the CISH immunohistochemistry, were randomly assigned 9 weeks of Herceptin or no Herceptin immediately following breast cancer surgery and in conjunction with certain types of chemotherapy. This regimen of treatment differed from other trials in which Herceptin was given for 12 months following chemotherapy. In this study, the drug was given in conjunction with certain types of chemotherapy, but before radiation and chemotherapy regimens known to damage the heart. The journalist states the Herceptin was given "prior to chemotherapy," which is not completely accurate. Herceptin is only FDA approved to treat advanced breast cancer, but it is used in clinical trials in early-stage breast cancer. However, this is not mentioned in the story. There is adequate discussion of the study design and reporting of disease-free survival at 3 years follow-up. There was little discussion in the piece of the side effects of chemotherapy as reported in the trial, but the addition of Herceptin was the main focus of the story. While the journalist provides quantitative benefit of 9 weeks of Herceptin vs. no Herceptin, and notes no cardiac failure in the Herceptin group, the follow-up period of 3 years may not be long-enough to determine the effects of chemotherapy and Herceptin on the heart. Overall, the journalist did a good job describing the randomization, as well as putting the results into context of other trials, and into context of how this may or may not change providers' practice. The story could have better stated the limitations of analysis for such a small subgroup (116 in each arm). The small sample randomized to Herceptin certainly warrants more study, and although the relative benefits were large, these women still had fairly good recurrence free survival 80% w/o and 90% with so although it looks like that will translate to overall survival. The question for women with overexpression of the HER/neu gene is: How much do you want to do to avoid recurrence? Sources in addition to the study investigators are cited, which provides some balance to the piece, however, there is no mention that the trial was funded in part by pharmaceutical companies. Some study investigators also receive research funding from drug companies.

Paragraph: "Florida has long had a poor reputation for spending on social services. Bud Chiles, running as an independent for governor, criticizes the state's spending on mental health care. On his website Chiles said: ""Nearly $3 billion dollars -- 10 percent of our state's general fund -- is going to pay for Florida's prisons. Meanwhile, Florida is 49th in per capita spending on mental health care, and 65 percent of inmates need substance abuse treatment and aren't getting it. The only way to end this cycle is through community solutions. Let's stop using a prison cell to solve problems when an ankle bracelet and drug counseling is proven to be more effective. Let's get resources to communities so that they can provide services locally at less taxpayer expense, creating local jobs and real results."" In this Truth-O-Meter item, we wanted to explore Chiles' claim that Florida is 49th in per capita spending on mental health. We spoke to Chiles on Aug. 31, 2010, who directed us tocampaign spokeswoman Katie Ottenweller. Shesaid the source of their information wasa July 4, 2010, editorial in the Tallahassee Democrat by David L. Miller, a retired senior vice president of Florida Power Corp. who had been chair of the Florida Substance Abuse and Mental Health Corp. The editorial stated that during the 2010 session, Florida legislators cut the $190,000 needed to continue the corporation, which was an independent, nonprofit created by the Legislature. ""The lack of services in Florida is shocking and embarrassing, as well as very costly,"" Miller wrote. ""Our state ranks 49th in per capita spending for mental-health care, an abysmal ranking borne out by the thousands of people who cannot get treatment and end up in our jails, prisons and on the streets."" Miller did not attribute the per capita spending comparison. PolitiFact Texas looked at a similar claim made by a candidate for lieutenant governor earlier this year. Marc Katz said that Texas ranked 50th -- last -- in per capita mental health spending. PolitiFact ranked that claim Mostly because one state was lower than Texas: New Mexico. That item cited a report by the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute, Inc., posted on a Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation website statehealthfacts.org that compares 50 states' and the District of Columbia per capita mental health spending. The chart ranked Florida 49th with $38.17 per capita followed by Texas at $34.57 and New Mexico in last place at $25.58. That report was based on fiscal year 2006 data, said Ted Lutterman, director of research analysis, in an interview. The 2007 report showed Florida 48th but Hawaii did not report and if it had, Florida would have been 49th, Lutterman said. The report based on 2008 data will be finished soon, said Lutterman, who said he is missing Alaska. But Alaska has always been ahead of Florida so he expects Florida to rank 49th again. ""It's been consistent for several years,"" Lutterman said. We reached out to several other organizations in the mental health field to determine if they had any otherinformation about Florida's mental health spending ranking. The National Alliance on Mental Illness gives states a grade, and in 2009 gave Florida a ""D."" The ""Grading the States 2009"" report evaluates measures such as the number of programs delivering evidence-based practices, emergency room wait-times, and the quantity of psychiatric beds by setting and whether Medicaid reimburses providers for all, or part of evidence-based practices; and more. In 2009, the organization gave six states an ""F"" and 21 states a ""D."" The report card is not based on per capita spending but gives us a general sense of how Florida compares -- somewhere in the bottom half of states. The nonprofit Mental Health America published a report in December 2007 called ""Ranking America's Mental Health: An Analysis of Depression Across the States."" Appendix B, which compares state mental health authority expenditures per capita for 50 states plus the District of Columbia, stated that Florida spent $35.96 while three states were lower: Arkansas $35.96, New Mexico $27.78 and Kansas $23.14. That report was based on 2004 data, said spokesman Steve Vetzner. A Sept. 10, 2009, letter to the editor in the Sun-Sentinel from Bob Sharpe, CEO and president of the Florida Council for Community Mental Health, states that Florida is 49th in per capita mental health spending but does not attribute the source of the ranking. We left a message for Sharpe but did not hear back. So how does Chiles' claim stack up? He said that Florida was 49th in per capita spending on mental health. The campaign cites an editorial that does not provide the source for the 49th figure. The Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute, Inc., concluded in a 2006 report that Florida ranked 49th and that figure has been quoted several times by mental health experts such as Sharpe. Mental Health America wrote in a 2007 report that Florida was 48th -- but it was based on earlier 2004 data. Based on the information we could find." Claim: Florida is 49th in per capita spending on mental health care.
Chiles says Florida ranks 49th in per capita mental health spending