Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

The story does not mention the cost of adult male circumcision outside of a clinical trail. It is also not clear whether this is a reimbursible procedure for adult males in the USA when no acute problem exists. The story appropriately describes the design of the two similar studies and provides both absolute and relative evidence that male circumcision reduces a man's risk of acquiring HIV via heterosexual sex. The story also mentions that the trials were stopped early because the benefit of male circumcision so significantly reduced the risk of acquiring HIV that it would be unethical to continue a trial in which uncircumcised men were not offered this protection. What is not mentioned is that the absolute number of avoided infections will be low in lower prevalence populations, so the risks of complications may outweigh the potential benefits for an individual of low risk. The story mentions potential harms of male circumcision such as mild infections. These are treatable and rare, especially when the procedure is performed by a trained medical professional. However, it is difficult to assess the negative consequences of surgery as no publication of adverse events is reviewable. It is also possible that side effects or negative consequences in the real-world (rather than a clinical trial) would be more common. The story doesn't explain whether there was a placebo arm of the study. Was there a sham operation? If so, were patients and evaluators blinded regarding treatment? This is a key indicator of study quality that is not commented upon. (Onecould positthat there is a reduced frequency of sexual encounters after this surgery, and this is the critical predictor of reduced acquisition of HIV, not the surgery itself.) The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story quotes an NIH official for perspective on the results of these studies. But since the NIH sponsored the study, he does have an interest in its outcome. It also quoted representatives of the World Health Organization and the Global AIDS Alliance. There are experts who would disagree with public health-related mass circumcision programs, for reasons both cultural and related to quality of life. The story mentions male circumcision as one method of reducing the transmission of HIV. But the story also mentions safer sex practices such as using condoms for better protection against HIV. The story reports on two large studies of male circumcision and reduced HIV in African heterosexual men. We are not told if these studies have been reviewed in a peer-reviewed journal or where they will be published. The results of these studies may be applicable regardless of geography: While more male infants are routinely circumcised in the U.S. than in Africa, this surgery is available for uncircumcised adult men in the U.S. who wish to reduce their risk of HIV transmission from heterosexual sex. Other protection against theHIV is still necessary. The story does note that this is a routine surgical procedure with few compilcations. What is stressed in the press release, but not the article, is that this procedure should only be performed by a medical professional who can also provide appropriate post-operative care during the healing period. Availability of safe circumcision and safe postoperative care is far from certain around the world. It is clear from the story that the link between male circumcision and HIV prevention was noted as long ago as the late 1980s. The story used several independent experts for comment, so it appears unlikely that it relied solely or largely on a news release.
Two studies in Africa link male circumcision to lower risk of HIV

"Like its competitors, the Times did not discuss costsanomissionwhich perhaps is more acceptable in this story since it clearly indicated that this is not very close to being a marketable product. Nevertheless, we would have liked to have seen some mention of the financial impact. Many patients with type 1 diabetes are not using currently available pumps and sensors because of the high cost of these devices. It seems likely that this new treatment, if it ever becomes widely available, will be as expensive or more so than the current pump and sensor technology. We applaud the Times for avoiding the term ""artificial pancreas"" in the headline and using it sparingly in the body of the story. The competing stories couldn't resist it. We can understand whymarketers and media relations people would favor this term because of its promotional value, but we don't think it's agood way to describe this technology in an objective piece of journalism. ""Artificial pancreas"" is misleading because we're not really anywhere close tobeing able to replicate what the normal human pancreasdoes through artificial technology. Forgetting for a momentthat the pancreas does much morethan simply dispense insulin (it alsoproduces a number of other hormones anddigestive enzymes that aren't impacted by diabetes),what's more important is how the pancreas worksin concert withthe brain and other systems to regulateglucose in a very tight range. The normal human pancreas starts releasinginsulin beforewe eat in response to complex environmental cues, whereas any artificial system would need tobe told thatmeal is coming or react to therise in glucose after thefact. Plus,insulinproduced by the bodystarts acting rightaway, whereas insulin analogues take about 20 minutes to takeeffect. Put this all together and we see that the ""artificial pancreas"" will, for the foreseeable future, require human intervention to predictpost-mealinsulin needs and dosing or else patients will be at risk of post-meal blood sugar spikes. And it's not at all clear that such a systemwill improve overall bloodsugar management compared with existing methods. The term""artificial pancreas"" conjures up a vision of totally automated glucose management and essentially a ""cure"" for type 1 diabetes. This isoverselling what the technology can do. The Times waited until the last 3 paragraphs of an 1,100-word story to hintthat an automated system could deliver unsafe doses of insulin. It isn't until the last sentence thatwe learn that the system would need to be ""exquisitely reliable"" in order to be safe. We feel the story should have raised these issues earlier and that it could have done more to emphasize just how difficult itwill befor any device to calculate insulin requirements on the fly. Insulin dosingis affected byfactorsranging from how much aperson has exercised to whatand how much they have eaten. It's conceivable that technology can account for all of these variables,but there are a lot ways thingscould go wrong, with potentially deadly results. It's a close call, butwe don't feel thestorydid enough to call attention to these issues. In contrast to its competitors, which allled readersto believe there had been a fully automated system sensing glucose levels and dispensing insulin to the participants in this study, the Times noted thatthe insulin was dispensed by a nurse based oncalculations made by a computer algorithm. The Times clearly indicated that the significance of this test was as a ""proof of concept"" that the algorithm works and is safe, not as a test of any specific device. It noted that a fully automated system combining glucosemonitoring and insulin delivery was still ""hypothetical."" In addition,the Times story wasthe only one to draw attention to the small size of this study and the fact the findings were not statistically significant for the primary outcomes. This noteofcaution was completely lacking from the competingcoverage. The story did not exaggerate the effects of type 1 diabetes. The story includes quotesfrom interviews with one of the study investigators and another researcher, and identifies both as having ties to diabetes products manufacturers. It also quotes an analyst at an investment firm. It would have been better had theyincluded one more source who didn't have commercial ties to specific products. The story describes currently available technology for glucose monitoring and insulin infusion. It describes the limitations of current approaches for managing insulin, especially during the overnight period. The story is a bit misleading in that it leaves the impression that all type 1 diabetics are currently using pumps at night. This is not actually the case. Most people are doing self monitoring of blood glucose and making judgement calls on whether and how much insulin to administer. However, the story does enough for a satisfactory in our view. The Times did a good job of describing the system used in this study and how close it is to being commercially available. It called the system ""experimental""and said that it was ""notfully automated."" It said that a fullyautomated glucose monitor/insulindelivery system was still ""hypothetical"" and would face regulatory hurdles before it could be marketed to the public. The story describes the progression from skin prick glucose testing to continuous monitoring and insulin pumps. It places the new developments in this field on this continuum. There could have beenmore discussion of many of the recent advances that have made daytime hyper- and hypoglycemia less of a problem such asthe newer short-acting insulins. The story did not rely on any news release."
Insulin Study Could Lead to New Dosage Devices

Though modest, it was the first such price drop in 45 years, according to nonpartisan economic experts at the federal Department of Health and Human Services, who deliver an annual report on the nation's health care spending. The price drop was for retail pharmacy prescriptions, not medications administered in hospitals or doctor's offices. HHS experts said the last time retail prescription drug prices declined was in 1973, when they went down by 0.2%. The price drop comes amid questionable prospects for major legislation to curb prescription drug costs. Nonetheless, it was a nugget of decent news in a sobering, broader report on rising U.S. health care spending. The HHS report found that spending on prescription medicines at pharmacies accounted for 9% of the total $3.6 trillion national health care tab in 2018. Total U.S. health care spending grew by 4.6% last year, averaging $11,172 per person. In the real world, U.S. spending is concentrated on the sickest patients, with 5% of the population accounting for half of costs. Because of strong overall economic growth last year, health care spending as a share of the national economy declined slightly, from 17.9% in 2017 to 17.7%, the report found. Legislation pending in Congress to curb drug costs would mainly benefit older people on Medicare, who are the biggest consumers of medicines. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is forging ahead with a floor vote next week on her bill authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices for the costliest drugs, including insulin. Under her bill, private insurance plans would be able to get Medicare's prices as well. But President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are solidly opposed to Medicare negotiations. Instead Trump is backing a bipartisan Senate bill that would require drugmakers to pay rebates to Medicare if they hike prices above inflation. As a candidate Trump had called for allowing Medicare to negotiate directly. Both bills would cap what Medicare recipients must pay annually in out-of-pocket costs for their prescriptions. The HHS report made no forecast of future prescription drug prices. It's unclear if the 1% price decline seen last year may be the beginning of a sustained trend or was merely a temporary pullback by drug companies getting pummeled by Trump and lawmakers of both parties. Thursday's report found that nearly 9 out of 10 prescriptions dispensed are for generic drugs, which puts downward pressure on prices. Even though prices of brand-name drugs increased more moderately, they still accounted for most of the spending on prescriptions nearly 79%. The government's findings on prices for brand-name drugs dovetailed with an analysis earlier this year by The Associated Press. In the first seven months of 2019, drugmakers raised list prices for brand-name prescription medicines by a median of 5%, the AP found. That was down from about 9% or 10% over those months the prior four years. The AP's findings suggest that an easing in drug prices may continue this year. Reducing prescription drug costs remains one of the top priorities for consumers. The White House claims that Trump has already delivered historic price cuts, but a recent Gallup poll found that 66% of adults believe the president has made little or no progress. The government study was published online by the journal Health Affairs.
US report: Prescription drug prices down slightly last year.