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: The Billings Gazette reported Wednesday that the Montana Human Rights Bureau ruled that Yellowstone County unlawfully denied "gender-affirming health care" to Eleanor Andersen Maloney in 2018. The newspaper reports Maloney was a county prosecutor when she was denied a health insurance request for possible elective surgery, although she was still on a waiting list at the time. The newspaper reports the county also sought the return of payments for Maloney's therapist. Yellowstone County has 30 days to respond. The case will move to a formal hearing if an agreement is not reached. Calls by the newspaper to the county seeking comment Wednesday were not returned. ___ Information from: The Billings Gazette, http://www.billingsgazette.com Claim: Montana county faces transgender discrimination complaint.
answer:
A Montana county may have discriminated against one of its own attorneys by denying the transgender woman access to health care.

question:
Paragraph: The release makes no mention of the cost of the drug in question, Tenofovir. A web search found that the cost for a month's supply of the antiviral drug averages just over $1,000. For some patients, that cost may be prohibitive. The cost is an issue of particular concern for developing countries, but it is also true that the price may be much lower for them than in the United States. Many pharmaceutical companies offer their drugs at steeply discounted rates in poorer countries to expand access to life-saving medicines. The release clearly says that 68 percent of women receiving the drug reduced their viral load while only 2 percent of the women in the control group had that success. It also says that the transmission of hepatitis B from mother to newborn dropped from 18 percent to 5 percent, an important clinical outcome. The release includes a discussion of harms. It states that "tenofovir was well tolerated; only one participant treated with tenofovir voluntarily withdrew from the study due to nausea." It also says that researchers "found no significant differences between the tenofovir-treated group and the control group with regard to fetal development and infant growth." Lastly, it calls for longer term, observational studies to confirm the safety of fetal exposure to tenofovir treatment. The release provides a good overview of the randomized, placebo-controlled trial which was undertaken to gauge the efficacy of the drug in both reducing the viral load of hepatitis-B-positive mothers and reducing the rate of transmission of the disease from mother to newborn. It offers solid, numerical evidence of both outcomes. It describes the number of patients (200 pregnant women), defined what constituted a "high" viral load, and described the approximate length of treatment. It did omit a mention of whether the trial was blinded. This release does not commit disease mongering. The release notes that the research is funded by Gilead Sciences. It should also have mentioned that a corresponding author disclosed speaking and advising fees from Gilead, according to the published study. The release is comparing the use of an antiviral drug given to pregnant women versus the normal procedure of giving both a vaccine and immune globulin. The release doesn't mention that tenofovir (marketed as Viread), the drug being tested, is already an FDA approved drug so many readers may not know that it's available. It was approved by the FDA in 2001 for HIV and in 2008 for chronic hepatitis B. The release just barely implies novelty with this statement which suggests a change in treating infected women who are pregnant: "Based on the findings, the investigators recommend that women be tested for HBV viral load at week 28 of pregnancy. Those with a high viral load should receive tenofovir treatment starting at gestational week 30 until delivery to reduce the risk of transmission to their infants." While the drug itself isn't novel, positive outcomes from a controlled trial on pregnant women carrying the virus does seem to introduce a new treatment approach. This release does not use any unjustifiable language. Claim: Antiviral Treatment During Pregnancy Reduces Mother-to-Child Transmission of Hepatitis B
answer:
This news release describes a clinical trial testing whether an antiviral drug given to pregnant women in their third trimester reduces their hepatitis B viral load. The study also examined whether the drug limits the transmission of the virus from mother to baby. The answers to both questions are yes, suggesting a new strategy for dealing with the spread of this disease. The release does a good job describing harms, quantifying benefits and describing the study protocol. Because the cost of hepatitis drugs has been widely debated for the past few years, a mention of the drug's cost would have made the release stronger. Almost 240 million people are infected with hepatitis B virus and about 780,000 die each year from the disease, according to the World Health Organization. The hepatitis B virus infects the liver and while many recover with treatment, it can become a chronic infection. Babies and young children infected with the virus are more likely to develop chronic hepatitis B. If administering a drug to infected mothers reduces the proportion of newborns getting the disease, it would be a considerable improvement in public health.

question:
Paragraph: Veggies given names like "zesty ginger-turmeric sweet potatoes" and "twisted citrus-glazed carrots" were more popular than those prepared exactly the same way but with plainer, more healthful-sounding labels. Diners more often said "no thanks" when the food had labels like "low-fat," reduced-sodium" or "sugar-free." More diners chose the fancy-named items, and selected larger portions of them too in the experiment last fall at a Stanford University cafeteria. "While it may seem like a good idea to emphasize the healthiness of vegetables, doing so may actually backfire," said lead author Bradley Turnwald, a graduate student in psychology. Other research has shown that people tend to think of healthful sounding food as less tasty, so the aim was to make it sound as good as more indulgent, fattening fare. Researchers from Stanford's psychology department tested the idea as a way to improve eating habits and make a dent in the growing obesity epidemic . "This novel, low-cost intervention could easily be implemented in cafeterias, restaurants, and consumer products to increase selection of healthier options," they said. The results were published Monday JAMA Internal Medicine. The study was done over 46 days last fall. Lunchtime vegetable offerings were given different labels on different days. For example, on one day diners could choose "dynamite chili and tangy lime-seasoned beets." On other days the same item was labeled "lighter-choice beets with no added sugar," high antioxidant beets," or simply "beets." Almost one-third of the nearly 28,000 diners chose a vegetable offering during the study. The tasty-sounding offering was the most popular, selected by about 220 diners on average on days it was offered, compared with about 175 diners who chose the simple-label vegetable. The healthy-sounding labels were the least popular. Diners also served themselves bigger portions of the tasty-sounding vegetables than of the other choices. Turnwald emphasized that "there was no deception" all labels accurately described the vegetables, although diners weren't told that the different-sounding choices were the exact same item. The results illustrate "the interesting advantage to indulgent labeling," he said. Dr. Stephen Cook, a University of Rochester childhood obesity researcher, called the study encouraging and said some high school cafeterias have also tried different labels to influence healthy eating. "It shouldn't be a surprise to us because marketing people have been doing this for years," Cook said. ___ Follow AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner at http://www.twitter.com/LindseyTanner and her work can be found at http://tinyurl.com/kv4uhoh Claim: Sweet sizzlin' beans! Fancy names may boost healthy dining.
answer:
Researchers tried a big serving of food psychology and a dollop of trickery to get diners to eat their vegetables. And it worked.