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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Patients used to pay $10,000 a year for cancer drugs, but now they're paying $10,000 a month, according to HBO talk show host Bill Maher. That's a message circulating on Facebook recently, promoted by the""Bill Maher Fanpage."" A reader asked us to check it out. The quote comes from the Oct. 2 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher discussed Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company that jacked up the cost of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 essentially overnight. ""Not that (Turing CEO Martin) Shkreli is unusual for the pharmaceutical industry,"" Maher said on his show. ""Fifteenyears ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month because this cartel owns the U.S. government every bit as much as Mexican drug lords own theirs."" It's well known that the cost of health care is on the rise,but has the annual cost of cancer drugs really increased so dramatically in just a decade and a half? Maher's team sent us links to some news articles about the rising cost of cancer drugs, and we tracked down information that speaks to his claim. The best information we could nail down is the cost of anticancer drugs at launch,the initial price when the Federal Drug Administration approves a drug. These are the sticker prices set by the pharmaceutical companies, not the prices patients actually pay out of pocket, which are reduced by insurance payments, patient assistance programs and other discounts. Costs increases, though, are often passed on to consumers. Maher has a point that cancer drug costs are on the rise. We charted the launch costs of cancer drugs the FDA approved since 1999, using a list compiled by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The second half of Maher's statement -- that cancer drugs now cost about $10,000 a month -- is also on solid ground. Of drugs approved in 2015, the monthly average cost is $11,319. And experts in the field often cite that $10,000 figure themselves. Because many cancer drugs are not administered to patients for a full year, it's difficult to determine an average annual cost, so the first half of Maher's statement -- that they cost about $10,000 a year 15 years ago -- is hard to nail down. To his point, though, the monthly cost of a new drug was dramatically lower in 2000 than what it is now at about $4,634. One of the news articles that Maher's team sent us is an academic article in the Journal of Oncology Practice that supports his statement. The report reads, ""The average cancer drug price for approximately one year of therapy or a total treatment duration was less than $10,000 before 2000."" Maher's statement is ""in the ballpark,"" if not an understatement, said Rena Conti, a health economist at the University of Chicago who researches cancer drug prices. In a 2015 paper Conti authored with three other leading health economists, she examined the launch cost of anticancer drugs controlled for inflation and the benefit to the patient (how much it prolongs life expectancy). For example, in 1995, anticancer drugs cost $54,100 for an additional year of life, the study found. In 2005, drugs cost $139,100 for the same benefit, and the price grew to $207,000 in 2013. In the United States, pharmaceutical companies set their own drug prices. What's pushing them to increase the costs? It's not necessarily that cancer drugs are getting better and are thus worth more. Conti's research concluded that just about one-fifth of the cancer drug cost increase can be attributed to a better product. There are two primary forces behind annual cancer drug cost increases, Conti said: First, pharmaceutical companies estimate a ""zone of indifference"" -- based on last year's prices, how much more would buyers be willing to pay? Second, rebates and discounts for drugs have also increased over time, and this creates an incentive for drug companies to increase their costs alongside the discounts. Pharmaceutical companies defend drug price increases by emphasizing that the revenue funds innovative research and that drugs lower overall health care costs by treating illnesses. Because there's no formal price regulation and competition in the industry is rare, ""It really is a system where there's no downward pressure on drug prices,"" said Peter Bach, director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Center for Health Policy and Outcomes in an interview with Fortune. Our ruling Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn't easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren't used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify,though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher's numbers are a little squishy, but they're in the ballpark." Claim: 15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month.

Output: "Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn't easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren't used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify,though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher's numbers are a little squishy, but they're in the ballpark."

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Moira O'Neill, director of the Office of the Child Advocate, said the center operated by Granite Pathways was unusual in that it was licensed by the Department of Health and Human Services but was not certified by the division that oversees child welfare. While that's not a requirement because the Division for Children, Youth and Families didn't directly place children at the facility, without that certification, it is unclear who had oversight over quality and safety, O'Neill said. "We have issues with the extent of oversight DCYF provides to certified agencies, but at a bare minimum, they know who's there, they re-certify them every two years, they provide technical assistance. There's some expectation that someone has an idea of what's going on in the program," she said in an interview. Republican Gov. Chris Sununu and the health department announced on Nov. 27 the state was canceling its contract with Granite Pathways, which had been operating the 36-bed facility in Manchester for just over a year. A summary report released by the department Monday said that in a span of less than two weeks, four of the 10 residents were taken to hospitals after taking drugs one of them smuggled in, a fifth took multiple doses of prescription medication in an apparent suicide attempt and a sixth drank a bottle of hand sanitizer. The remaining residents have since been transferred, and the contract officially ends Dec. 27. Some of the residents at the center were known to the child welfare agency, said O'Neill, who has been reviewing their records. "In our preliminary review, we found that there were children who were placed there who have really complicated needs, and we don't know if that program had the capacity to serve those needs," she said. O'Neill said she sent the Department of Health and Human Services a list of questions in late November about what the facility knew about the children, its capacity to meet their needs and how the program was supervised. As of Tuesday, she had not received answers. "If we are going to understand the circumstances that prompted seven ambulance transports, we must understand how those children came to be at the facility and what transpired in assessing and treating them," she said. Jake Leon, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the department agrees with O'Neill that it is important to ensure that children get the services they need. He said the department has addressed and continues to address similar questions, but responses must remain confidential to protect clients' privacy. "DHHS monitored Granite Pathways' compliance with its contractual obligations and is still compiling information regarding the organization's noncompliance. There is also an ongoing investigation by DCYF that must be kept confidential," he said in an email. Patrica Reed, state director at Granite Pathways, said the nonprofit's leaders and board of directors were still reviewing the health department's report. "The end of this contract does not end Granite Pathways' commitment to its mission of supporting individuals with substance use disorders and mental illness in achieving their life goals as valued members of their communities," she said in a statement. But the trouble at the youth treatment center has raised questions about the state's approach to funding substance abuse treatment in general and Granite Pathways in particular. Since 2016, it has been a subsidiary of The Fedcap Group, a New York-based nonprofit that focuses on helping people overcome barriers to economic well-being through workforce development, education, occupational health and economic development. With close to $300 million in annual revenue, the parent organization has government contracts in 22 states, and its acquisitions include Easterseals programs New York, Rhode Island and parts of Texas. In New Hampshire, Granite Pathways was a year into a four-year, $15.6 million contract for the youth treatment center. According to the state expenditure register, the organization has been paid $4.1 million since 2012, including just under $900,000 in the current fiscal year. Under the hub-and-spoke system the state launched this year to connect people to opioid addiction resources, Granite Pathways was awarded $5 million in federal funding over multiple years to run the two largest hubs, in Manchester and Nashua. Contracts are approved by the five-member Executive Council, and at least one member has expressed concern about Granite Pathways in the past. In June, when the council approved a $345,000 contract related to treatment for adolescents, Councilor Andru Volinsky noted that the organization already was running the opioid response hubs and called for "continued vigilance" to ensure it could keep up with all its responsibilities. "We've had, in particular when trying to quickly build out our substance abuse response, a number of instances where the financial management of private nonprofits was not strong. We haven't really had strong capacity to oversee that at DHHS," he said in a recent interview. "My concern at the time of this Granite Pathways contract was that we were again placing what I think are state responsibilities onto a private contractor, and we still haven't built an infrastructure to oversee those private contractors." Volinsky, a Democrat, said he doesn't know whether the state should build out its own capacity to respond to the substance abuse crisis, or whether it's enough to rely on outside groups and closely monitor them. "I could legitimately understand the arguments either way," he said. "But to almost blithely continue to invest in outside agencies without oversight doesn't make sense." In announcing the closing of the youth treatment center, officials said the state is taking 30 days to review all of its contracts with Granite Pathways and may take further action. The health department also has increased its oversight of substance use disorder treatment centers in the last year after one of the largest facilities closed. Those efforts have included financial audits and the appointment of a new director at the Office of Program Integrity. Claim: Child advocate sees lack of oversight at youth treatment hub.

Output: New Hampshire's only residential treatment center for teens struggling with addiction operated with an apparent lack of oversight before it was shutdown earlier this month, the director of a state watchdog office said Tuesday.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Department CEO Danette Smith made the pronouncement at a Lincoln news conference Monday while discussing her department's efforts to better serve the teenage girls sent to the Geneva center that she emptied last week. Two dozen female juvenile offenders were moved to the boys center in Kearney after department officials learned the girls' buildings in Geneva had fire hazards, holes in walls and mold and water damage. Staffers are discussing leasing a 20-bed portion at the Lancaster County Youth Services Center, Smith said. Discussions with the county are still preliminary, but she said the center could house the youths there, providing education, case management, probation and therapeutic recreation and transition services. The department is talking to various groups about addressing the needs of juvenile offenders, Smith said. "The department has an obligation to the youth we serve, and we are committed to making the necessary changes to provide an environment that is safe, supportive and gives youth the opportunity to thrive as they make the transition into adulthood," she said. Regarding the troubled Geneva center, Smith said work has begun to fix the LaFlesche Cottage, a building that has been awaiting sewer line repairs since spring, and to assess what could be done to the other three residential buildings to make them usable. The campus in rural, central Nebraska serves as a rehabilitation center for girls ages 14-18 who have broken the law and been rejected by other private treatment facilities. The problems came to a head two weeks ago, when one girl damaged the sprinkler system in one of the four residential cottages. The girls moved to the boys center in Kearney have mental health services and case management support available there, as well as physicians who can manage medications, Smith said. Claim: Nebraska eyes county facility to treat juvenile offenders.
Output: Lancaster County officials and the state of Nebraska are discussing a way to provide intensive behavioral health services to juvenile offenders who need the help, the head of the state Health and Human Services Department said.