instruction:
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.
question:
Paragraph: Up to 94 students will get scholarships on campuses in Phoenix and Tucson, the UA Colleges of Medicine said. For each year of tuition waived, they'll have to commit to working in an underserved area after their residency for one year. The scholarships are funded with $3 million from an $8 million state funding plan approved earlier this year. The rest of that money will allow growth from 80 to 100 medical students at UA's Phoenix campus. State and federal governments have looked to a wide variety of grants, scholarships, loan forgiveness and other initiatives to seek out doctors willing to work in underserved areas and support them financially. An aging population and projected physician retirements have fueled concerns that the U.S. will face a growing shortage of providers a problem felt hardest in lower-income areas. Physician groups say high debt burdens discourage new doctors from working in primary care in rural or urban underserved areas, which tend to come with lower salaries than jobs in specialties or wealthy areas. Debt concerns discourage some would-be doctors from even applying to medical school, Dr. Michael Dake, senior vice president of UA Health Sciences, said in a news release. The scholarships will be available only to UA students who qualify as Arizona residents. Eligible post-residency specializations include family medicine, general internal medicine, geriatrics, pediatrics, psychiatry, and obstetrics and gynecology. Eligible underserved areas are designated by the federal government based on having too few doctors, high infant mortality rates, high poverty or a large elderly population. UA medical school tuition for Arizona residents is about $33,000 per year. Medical school is four years. Arizona's physician training capacity has grown in recent years with the opening of the UA's Phoenix campus and schools run by the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, A.T. Still University in Mesa and Midwestern University in Glendale. Nebraska-based Creighton University is building a health sciences campus that will include a medical school in midtown Phoenix. Claim: Scholarships target doctors in Arizona underserved areas.
answer:
University of Arizona's medical school announced Friday that it will give free tuition to some students who commit to working as primary care doctors in underserved areas, an effort to improve access to health care in areas where it's most lacking.

question:
Paragraph: It's true that eos lip balm users have reported finding black mold inside the product. Reports of black mold found inside eos lip balm have sporadically appeared on social media for years. In February of 2015, one eos lip balm user's account of finding black mold inside a container of half-used lip balm gained a lot of attention on Facebook: "I really liked your lip balm, until I got to the middle of mine and found the bottom was full of mold. Ithought there was an air bubble in the middle, but it turns out it was a blob of mold. I tried to scrape itoff, but it went all the way down to the bottom of the container. Super disappointed and disgusted. Thatwas a waste of my money, and I won't be buying any of your products again." In the comments section under the post, many people uploaded photos of eos lip balm speckled with what they call black mold. And these reports aren't necessarily new, either. Online reports of black mold found inside of eos lip balm date back to 2012. For its part, eos responded on Facebook that it "very occasionally" gets reports of its lip balm users finding black mold because it's a natural product that doesn't contain any preservatives: "We do very occasionally hear of this. Mold will grow on many surfaces, especially warmand moist places and on products with natural ingredients. The best way to prevent this is to try to not get the lip balmitselfwet when applying it (apply to dry lips) and/or let any moisture that's on the lip balm dry before you put the top backon. I hope this helps and thank you for using our products. "While mold very rarely grows on our lip balm, it has been known to happen, especially with all-natural ingredients. Ourpolicy is that we're happy to replace any defective lip balm so long asthe customer provides a picture. So if you want tosend a picture of the moldy lip balm to [emailprotected], we'd be happy to send a coupon for a replacement. Thanks again for the feedback as it helps us improve." The USDA reports that most molds found on food and consumer products are not toxic, but it is possible for some varieties to cause allergic reactions or respiratory problems. Comments Claim: Black mold has been found inside eos lip balm containers.
answer:
Customers Find Black Mold Inside Eos Lip Balm.

question:
Paragraph: It's too early to have a meaningful discussion of costs. The story does not provide a lot of hard data on benefits, and we would have liked to have seen more. For example, it says that "about half of their scar tissue dissolved and the reduction in scar size appears to get bigger after the first six months." But we appreciated some of the specific details it does provide, including: "Marban says the amount of new heart tissue that grew was not subtle. [On average] "22 grams (about .78 ounces) of new heart tissue grew," which he says is quite remarkable considering this had never been done before and the average weight of the part of the heart that is responsible for pumping the blood through the body is about 150 grams (about 5.3 ounces)." Having said that however, the story misses an important point. The patients treated with the stem cells did not have an improvement in their overall heart function. So while there appeared to be a considerable amount of regenerated heart muscle, it did not make any difference in the performance of the heart so that patients did not likely see any benefit to the procedure. The story at least mentioned harms. Another story on the study, by WebMD, did not. This one says, "After 12 months, researchers report only one patient appeared to have a serious side effect that may have been connected to the experimental cells." Competing coverage discussed a broader group of patients who had bad outcomes, although it is not clear that all of those outcomes were a result of the treatment. Pinpointing the cause of a side effect can be tricky, and given the lead researcher's financial interest in this stem cell therapy, we think stories should err on the side of providing more information about potential harms. The story did a better job than some of the other coverage of the study in explaining exactly what this study entailed and the study's limitations. The story says, for example, "She cautions that this procedure has to be tested on many more patients and they have to be observed for longer periods than in the current study, but she says these results are all very positive." The story does not engage in disease mongering. It makes it clear that this was a study in a particular group of patients, not just any patient with heart disease. "To qualify for this clinical trial, patients had to have suffered a recent heart attack and "had to have a significant amount of damage to begin with and weren't squeezing [blood into the body] as well as they should have, says Dr. Peter Johnston, one of the study authors who injected the new heart cells into patients treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital." The story could have sought a little wider circle of independent experts. But we thought the reporter elicited good comments from Sonia Skarlatos, Ph.D and deputy director of the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences at the NIH's National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, which funded the study. We have to give an "unsatisfactory" here, though, because the story failed to mention the financial interest that the lead researcher has in the stem cell therapy. The press release for the study mentions this, as does a competing WebMD story. There is no discussion of alternatives in this story. One might think that the only option for heart attack patients is to wait around until stem cell treatments become available. Even an additional line about alternatives would have been appreciated. The story makes it clear not only that the treatment is experimental but that it has to clear many more hurdles before becoming a clinical option. The story improves on a competing WebMD story by explaining the novelty of this study. "This is the first instance of therapeutic regeneration," says Dr. Eduardo Marban, director of the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute. He says while nature abounds with examples of spontaneous regeneration of limbs or tissues like a salamander's new tail or a human liver regrowing to full size if partially damaged doctors have not been able to help patients regrow heart tissue. This could change in the future if larger clinical trials and longer patient outcomes confirm the results of this early research published Monday in the journal The Lancet. Marban and his colleagues first presented this research at an American Heart Association conference in November. The story goes beyond the Cedars-Sinai press release. Claim: Patient's own stem cells help heal heart, early research shows
answer:
The story did a better job than a competing WebMD story in covering most of the necessary ground to give readers a realistic assessment of this stem cell study. It described the actual study with an appropriate level of detail. However, it missed two important points that were noted in the WebMD piece: the lead researcher's conflict of interest and the fact that there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the two groups. The use of autologous stem cells to repair damaged heart muscle has been studied previously with mixed results. This phase 1 study (designed to determine the safety of the stem cell infusions) was conducted in a small group of patients who had previously suffered a heart attack and now had evidence of heart failure. Although the survival of heart attack has improved, the residual effects (heart failure) remains an elusive target. This study demonstrated small but important changes in the area of the heart attack in the treated patients. One of the best aspects of this story is how it repeatedly shows what the researchers still don't know. Instead of presenting this as a breakthrough with a clear path to clinical application, the story uses phrases such as, "why this is happening is still unclear." Somewhat puzzling however was the lack of improvement in the degree of heart failure in the treated patients as compared to controls. This important fact seems to have been missed in the story. Additional studies are necessary to see if in fact this approach actually improve heart function.