TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: The Food and Drug Administration approved Medtronic's CoreValve system based on U.S. clinical trials in which it was shown to be safe and effective while demonstrating low rates of stroke and valve leakage, the company said. CoreValve, in which the replacement valve is threaded into place through an artery using a catheter, spares patients chest-cracking surgery. The system has been available since 2007 in Europe, where it is not uncommon for medical devices to win approval several years ahead of the United States. Claim: U.S. FDA approves Medtronic heart valve replacement system.

SOLUTION: Medtronic Inc's non-invasive systems for replacing diseased heart valves won U.S. approval for use in patients deemed too frail to endure traditional open heart surgery, the U.S. medical device maker said on Friday.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Plaintiffs Russell Geissler, Bernard Bagley and Willie James Jackson filed a lawsuit in 2017 against the Department of Corrections over a lack of treatment for hepatitis C. A proposed class-action settlement was submitted after the lawsuit was filed. "This is a major step toward eliminating a point source for hepatitis C," class counsel Reuben Guttman, with the law firm Guttman, Buschner & Brooks, said in a press release. Judge Margaret Seymour gave the proposed settlement the preliminary approval, news outlets reported. Identifying and treating inmates with hepatitis C will cost between $4,000 and $15,000 per person, depending on the individual's health. The agency began testing current and former inmates in 2018. The department also received $10 million in its 2019-2020 budget to cover drugs, staffing, equipment and other expenses related to the testing and treatment for hepatitis C. Testing for all 18,125 South Carolina inmates is on schedule to be completed by June. The agency's director, Bryan Stirling, said this a big step toward providing inmates with a safe environment. "We know that about 85% of inmates return to society within five years, and this will save medical treatment costs for taxpayers in the long run," Stirling said. Hepatitis C is a viral infection that is spread through exposure to blood or blood products, commonly through sharing needles during intravenous drug use. Claim: Mandated hep C treatment for SC inmates gets initial consent.

SOLUTION: A federal judge granted preliminary approval Tuesday of a proposed settlement mandating testing and treatment for hepatitis C of all inmates in South Carolina correction facilities.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The article fails to report how much the drug costs, especially as compared to generic or other alternatives. If it is a relativelyexpensive drug, this would provide useful context. The article should have made clear the absolute risks of the most severe cardiac outcomes in the Type 2 population in general and in Avandia takers specifically. This is especially important given the data the article focuses on clearly misrepresent prevalence. The author cites a 43 percent increase in heart attacks attributed to Avandia in the original New England Journal of Medicine article, but Nissen's original NEJM report shows that the numbers of heart attacks and deaths were quite small. The article makes clear the range of side effect severity, properly focusing on the most serious: heart-related hospitalizations and deaths. More informationon the benefits of this class of drugs would providebetter balance. The article makes clear that the data it is examiningare limited by the anecdotal, voluntary nature of the reports to the federal government. But it fails to specify the harms and benefits of the treatment as reflected in previous research. The risks of Type 2 diabetes itself and of taking Avandia are real. Still, the citation of a 43 percent increase in risk to Avandia takers, without context and proportion, createsa potentially misleading impression of the drug's harm. The article makes clear the affiliations and potential conflicts of interest ofkey experts interviewed. A small oversight is the failure to mention that the original NEJM piecediscloses thatauthor Steve Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic has received research support froma number of diabetes drug makers, none of which is GlaxoSmithKline, Avandia's maker. Thatstudy mentions that consulting fees he gets from various drugmakers (it is not revealed whether that group includes GSK) are donated directly to charity. The article fails to mention that there are cheaper, effective alternatives to Avandia on the market. The article makes clear that Avandia is widely used, and that 1 million Americans take it. Given the intent of the article, however, it would have been useful to include an estimate of the drug's market share,or at leastcompare the one million to thenational type 2 diabetes population. The author makes clear that the treatment is in widespread use. The reporter has undertaken considerable original research to do this article. Claim: Diabetes drug side effect reports triple

SOLUTION:
This is an ambitious original work of health journalism designed to explore the dangers of Avandia beyond what current research and government action allow. It also suggests that the data it gathered, by its verynature,illustrates weaknesses in the government post-market surveillance system. It's an excellent example of enterprise work. Getting documents under theFreedom of Information Act requires considerable time and effort. Both AP and the reporter should be recognized for their commitment to this story. Having said all that, the article fails to convey key information about the true size of the benefits and risks of the drugto peoplewith type 2 diabetes. It does not mention other treatment options. As a result, the story may unnecessarily frighten Avandia users.