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 Q]: Paragraph: We'll give the story the benefit of the doubt for again leaning on an independent expert who says the technology is likely prohibitively expensive. While no dollar estimate is given, we think this is good enough for now. As with the harms, the story does quantify the benefits in one way. It says, "It could help avoid up to 98% of these screening procedures, according to the study, which appears in BMJ." It also says, "The new study included 753 pregnant women who were at high risk for having a child with Down syndrome. Of these, 86 women were determined to be pregnant with a child with Down syndrome." The story does quantify potential harms in one way by noting, "There were no false-negative results with the new test." We wish the story also spoke about false positives. False positives are certainly part of the stress and harms from any screening test that need to be considered. In this case, it appears the false positives were low but not negligible. The story adequately describes the study design. The story does avoid disease monitoring, but we wish it had included some of the data from the paper about the frequency of Down syndrome and even some of the other disorders. The LA Times blog piece managed to do this in much less space. The story provides a wealth of outside experts who provide great commentary and context about the study's findings. We wish more stories about screenings had quotes like these:"In a year or two, this test may be available, but it won't replace existing technologies, it will nudge its way into our armamentarium of available methodologies," says Mark I. Evans, MD,director of Comprehensive Genetics in New York City, and an obstetrician/gynecologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, also in New York City. "The bad news is that prenatal diagnosis is not just about Down syndromeDown syndrome represents about 50% of what we find, and this new test can help with that, but it may also give women a false sense of reassurance." The story tries to do a good thing by explaining at the very end that the new test is not a diagnostic test, as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are. Rather, it's a screening test. The distinction and the significance of that could have been made more clearly, but we give the story the benefit of the doubt. The story leans on an independent expert to say that the test is "not ready for prime time.in a year or two, this test may be available." The story does not establish the test's novelty, and this is largely because it does not provide the proper context. The study itself says, "In the past 20 years maternal age has been combined with ultrasonographic examination of the fetus and biochemical measurement of various proteins or hormones in the maternal circulation to improve identification of high risk pregnancies. This combined approach of screening can now identify more than 90% of affected fetuses, but there is still a need for invasive testing in 35% of the population." This means that as many as 95% of all women would not need invasive testing to begin with, so this test is only potentially a breakthrough for a small minority of women. BMJ actually makes the novelty question easy to answer by breaking it down this way: What is already known on this topic:Non-invasive prenatal detection of fetal trisomy 21 is achievable by massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNAIts diagnostic performance and practical feasibility in the clinical setting has not been tested on a large scale. What this study adds:Among high risk pregnancies clinically indicated for invasive prenatal diagnosis, non-invasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 can be achieved with the use of multiplexed massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA at 100% sensitivity and 97.9% specificity, giving a 96.6% positive predictive value and 100% negative predictive value. The sequencing test could be used to rule out trisomy 21 among high risk pregnancies before proceeding to invasive diagnostic testing to reduce the number of cases requiring amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling." The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: Progress Toward Blood Test for Down Syndrome
[EX A]: This thoroughly reported and carefully written story avoids giving pregnant women false hope of an easier way to detect genetic anomalies while still presenting some compelling information about a new blood test. Pregnancy can be anxiety inducing because of the sheer number of tests already required of women: frequent blood tests, ultrasounds, and amniocentesis in many cases. Add to that the barrage of stories about the way diet and environmental conditions may be affecting in utero development at any given point and one can understand why women might want a simpler solution to find out whether their child might have a genetic disorder. Overall, we think if more stories approached screening the way this story did there would be fewer people demanding the latest over-hyped test from their doctor. This is a "hope for the future" level test that may be inching its way to market. It's not available now and won't be in the immediate future and the story makes that clear.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: That's among the findings of the America's Health Rankings Senior Report released in May by the United Health Foundation. The report ranks the 50 states by assessing data covering individual behavior, the environment and communities where seniors live, local health policy and clinical care. Minnesota took top honors for the second year in a row, ranking high for everything from the rate of annual dental visits, volunteerism, high percentage of quality nursing-home beds and low percentage of food insecurity. This year's runners-up are Hawaii, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. The researchers base their rankings on 34 measures of health. But here's one you won't find in the report: state compliance with the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While the health reform law isn't mainly about seniors, it has one important feature that can boost the health of lower-income older people: the expansion of Medicaid. The ACA aims to expand health insurance coverage for low-income Americans through broadened Medicaid eligibility, with the federal government picking up 100 percent of the tab for the first three years (2014-2016) and no less than 90 percent after that. But when the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ACA's legality in 2012, it made the Medicaid expansion optional, and 21 states have rejected the expansion for ideological or fiscal reasons. And guess what: Most of the states with the worst senior health report cards also rejected the Medicaid expansion. Nearly all Americans over age 65 are covered by Medicare. But the Medicaid expansion also is a key lever for improving senior health because it extends coverage to older people who haven't yet become eligible for Medicare. That means otherwise uninsured low-income seniors are able to get medical care in the years leading up to age 65 - and they are healthier when they arrive at Medicare's doorstep. Two studies from non-partisan reports verify this. The U.S. Government Accountability Office reported late last year that seniors who had continuous health insurance coverage in the six years before enrolling in Medicare used fewer and less costly medical services during their first six years in the program; in their first year of Medicare enrollment, they had 35 percent lower average total spending. The GAO study confirmed the findings of a 2009 study report by two researchers at the Harvard Medical School. That study looked at individuals who were continuously or intermittently uninsured between age 51 and 64; these patients cost Medicare an additional $1,000 per person due mainly to complications from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and delayed surgeries for arthritis. Fifty-two percent of Medicaid-rejecting states ranked in the study's bottom third for senior health, including two very large states, Texas and Florida. Many of these states also can be found in a list of states with the highest rates of poverty among people over 65. What emerges is a north-south divide on senior health. "Many states that haven't expanded Medicaid are in the South, and there's a clear link between socioeconomic status and health status," says Tricia Neuman, senior vice-president at the Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation and director of the foundation's Medicare policy program. "Insurance may not be the only answer, but it certainly is helpful." The United Health Foundation - a non-profit funded by the insurer UnitedHealth Group - didn't consider insurance coverage in its study, but it did consider poverty. Minnesota's rate was 5.4 percent - well below the 9.3 percent national rate. Mississippi ranked dead last, with a 13.5 percent poverty rate. In states that rejected the Medicaid expansion, we are witnessing a victory of politics over compassion and morality. Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a key architect of health reform in Massachusetts and under the ACA, summed it up in an interview with HealthInsurance.org earlier this year, saying that these states "are willing to sacrifice billions of dollars of injections into their economy in order to punish poor people. It really is just almost awesome in its evilness." Claim: The state of senior health: It depends on your state.
[EX A]: What are the best and worst places to stay healthy as you age? For answers, take out a map and follow the Mississippi River from north to south. The healthiest people over 65 are in Minnesota, the sickest in Mississippi.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Ohio and several other states across the country this year have passed laws to restrict abortion rights, including legislation todefund Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit organization that provides health care services, including abortions. Ohio lawmakers, who already have passed a late-term abortion ban and other anti-abortion measures this year, have just begun hearings on Senate Bill 201, which is designed to defund Planned Parenthood and other family planning centers. The day before the first Senate hearing on SB 201, Ohio Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, promoted the proposed law as a key component of its agenda. ""Ohio's Planned Parenthood operations received millions of taxpayer dollars via federal grants in 2010 and 2011,"" a Dec. 5 news release from Ohio Right to Life said. Ohio Right to Life went on to say that Planned Parenthood has performed more abortions annually as its federal funding has increased. It lauds the bill as one that will direct funding away from abortion providers and calls the hearings on the bill a step toward making 2012 a ""groundbreaking year for Ohio's pro-life movement."" PolitiFact Ohio decided to examine Ohio Right to Life's claim about public funding of Planned Parenthood, in light of its underlying contention that the funding of the agency supports abortion. We asked Michael Gonidakis, executive director for Ohio Right to Life, for specifics on the taxpayer money Planned Parenthood has received. Gonidakis said state agencies disbursed the federal grants, authorizing more than $1.6 million in 2010 to Planned Parenthood locations in Ohio and more than $1.7 million this year. He also provided a memo the nonpartisan Ohio Legislative Service Commission prepared detailing state agencies' disbursement of federal grants to Planned Parenthood branches in Ohio. LSC compiled the information for Rep. Kristina Roegner, a Republican from Hudson who is a primary sponsor on companion legislation introduced in the House to defund Planned Parenthood. Roegner's office confirmed the memo's authenticity. Tara Broderick, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Northeast Ohio, said the organization does receive federal grant money. But none of that money pays for abortions, she said. ""A huge myth,"" Broderick said. ""Absolutely I can say taxpayer money is not used for abortion services,"" she said. Planned Parenthood must sign an agreement affirming it will not use taxpayer money to provide, promote or refer abortion services, said a spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Health, which distributes the bulk of federal grant money that Planned Parenthood receives. Additionally, an audit is performed to account for the organization's use of government dollars, Broderick said. According to Planned Parenthood, the vast majority of its clients receive health care services such as Pap tests, birth control and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. Less than 4 percent of Ohio Planned Parenthood clients received an abortion, the organization stated. Nationally, Planned Parenthood performed 332,278 abortion procedures in 2009, the most recent year data was available. Those procedures made up 3 percent of the organization's services, according to a Planned Parenthood fact sheet that was last updated in October. Gonidakis, of Ohio Right to Life, acknowledged that the federal Hyde Amendment and state law prohibits tax dollars for paying for abortions. ""However, the significant public dollars Planned Parenthood does receive keeps them afloat and pays for pretty much their entire operations,"" he said in an e-mail. Not true, said Broderick, of Planned Parenthood of Northeast Ohio. She said the federal dollars make up 16 percent of the branch's budget. So where does that leave us? Ohio Right to Life is correct to say that Planned Parenthood locations in Ohio have received millions in federal grants. But the connection between Planned Parenthood's federal funding and its abortion services is not as direct as Ohio Right to Life's news release implies. Federal law bars Planned Parenthood from using taxpayer money for abortions, and the agency must certify to the state that it does not do so. The money that would be redirected by S.B. 201 is used to provide other health services. Ohio Right to Life's claim about funding for Planned Parenthood is accurate. That the money cannot be used for abortions and that abortion procedures make up a small percentage of Planned Parenthood services are additional pieces of information that provide the full picture." Claim: Ohio's Planned Parenthood operations received millions of taxpayer dollars via federal grants in 2010 and 2011.
[EX A]:
Ohio Right to Life says millions of federal aid went to the state's Planned Parenthood affiliates