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.

[Q]: Paragraph: The city said in a release that it will spend $9.4 million to boost its mobile mental health treatment teams, which were launched in 2016. The city said the new money will be part of a $21 million investment that will lead to the hiring of more social workers, housing specialists and legal assistance employees. The additional workers will be needed to process the 20% increase in mental health referrals the effort is expected to generate, the city said, adding that it will likely reach 900 more people annually. In addition, the city said it plans to spend $11 million to create hospital-based outreach teams to coordinate care for people who frequent emergency rooms and acute care facilities. Mayor Bill de Blasio said the initiative will keep neighborhoods safer. "We have an obligation to address our broken mental health system and do all we can to connect people who are struggling to treatment," de Blasio said. "That includes the small percentage of those with mental illness that, left untreated, are at risk of committing violence against themselves or others." The city said its mobile units are in addition to a program that teams up mental health professionals with police officers who engage clients with serious mental health needs and a history of violence. The goal, it said, is to connect those individuals to professional treatment and support systems such as housing or family. Claim: New York City expands mobile program to reach mentally ill.
[A]: New York City is expanding a program to use mobile units to reach hundreds of people who are mentally ill, the city announced Monday.

[Q]: Paragraph: We'll give this story a Satisfactory rating in this category since it does mention the $1,000 cost of a colonoscopy and that one of the two at-home screening tests costs about $25. But readers would benefit more by knowing the average costs of the two alternatives, rather than just the cost of one. This story focuses on theavailable methods of colorectal screening, comparing them based on available data, and points out that the two at-home screening kits are comparably effective to the two invasive procedures: sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. One of the at-home tests the FIT, or fecal immunochemical test when used, is estimated to prevent 20-23 deaths per thousand people screened, while estimates among those using colonoscopy suggest 22-24 deaths are prevented per thousand people screened. The story is clear in saying that there has been no head-to-head comparative study pitting the techniques against each other. The story gets a Satisfactory rating here since it does mention that with colonoscopy, there's "a small but real risk of harm, such as a perforation" from the screening test. But, as with all screening methods, there is the possibility of false positives or false negatives with the at-home tests which could produce either false confidence or needless worry, not insignificant issues. We would have liked the story even better had it mentioned these factors. The story is quite open with the fact that comparative data assessing the various screening methods against each other are not available, but it strengthens its offerings by citing recommendations from both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive HealthCare. The recommendations of these independent groups are based on a rigorous evaluation of the highest-quality evidence available. Colon cancer is the second-leading form of cancer-related death in the country; the story does not disease monger. The story quotes three independent sources for information and the recommendations of agencies from two different governments. There is no suggestion that in a story offering a selection of screening techniques, with no one preferred above another, that there is any issue with conflicts of interest. Since this story is totally about the available alternatives for colorectal cancer screening, it easily gets a Satisfactory rating. Both colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy have been available for years and the at-home screening tests mentioned in the story are said to be available through a patient's doctor's office. These details establish the methods' availability. It also quotes one source asrecommending againstthe use of over-the-counter home screening tests for this disease. The story notes that what's novel here is that the U.S. Preventive Task Force recently finalized their guidelines on colon cancer screening. There is no indication that this story relied on a news release. Claim: You Could Skip Your Colonoscopy If You're Willing To Collect Your Poop
[A]: This story points out that, based on available data, two at-home screening tests appear to be equally effective compared to the more traditional, and more invasive, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We have only minor quibbles with the storyoverall, it provided an excellent assessment of the at-home test options, particularly the fecal immunochemical test. However, for any story about screening methods, particularly blood tests, we think it's important to include the risks of false-positive and false-negative results, which carry harm. The story didn't go there. Given that the public has reservations about aspects of the invasive screening methods, information suggesting that they might be adequately replaced by non-invasive approaches is important to the public's health. All too often, colonoscopy is promoted as the "gold standard"and no mention is made of effective alternatives. This news storydoes a good job explaining options, and also explores the reasons why so many Americans think that screening with colonoscopy is the best way to be screened for colon cancer and why that attitude is not supported by the evidence and may (in rare cases) be much worse than non-invasive screening methods.

[Q]: Paragraph: The story notes the cost of specific VR headsets (from $599 to $799) and says that users would also need to have a computer (costing approximately $999) to run the relevant software. Presumably, the games or other content for the VR systems would also cost money, which the story doesn't address. The story also does not address whether any of these costs would be covered by insurance or government programs (at this point, probably not). Benefits aren't quantified. The story mentions that, in some studies, "patients reported less discomfort." The story also notes that one of these studies found that patients "actually experienced less pain." However, it's not clear how much less discomfort and pain. A little bit? A lot? Instead, the story relies heavily on anecdote; for example, citing two patients who found VR useful in addressing their pain. On a side note, the story also cites "proponents of virtual reality" as saying that VR "can be an effective treatment" for Alzheimer's disease, arachnophobia and depression then doesn't expand on this or even mention any of those conditions again. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. Repeating claims fromunnamed proponentsabout conditions that aren't the subject of the story, and then not subjecting those claims to any critical analysis, does a disservice to readers. The story doesn't address potential harms. The types of consumer-focused VR technology being discussed in this article are relatively new, and the field is undergoing rapid growth. As such, it can be difficult to determine what harms associated with VR use, much less what the extent of those harms might be. However, that doesn't mean that nothing is known about potential risks associated with VR. One VR technology provider offers an overview of potential risks associated with its headset, and those risks range from dizziness and seizure for adults and children, to the potential for developmental problems related to balance, hand-eye coordination and multi-tasking in children. We don't expect stories to list all of the potential harms associated with any given intervention, but we do expect there to be at least some acknowledgment that risks exist. The story refers to at least two completed studies, but tells readers virtually nothing about them. Have they been published or presented at conferences? How many patients participated? Did they use control groups? Not only does the story tell us very little about the studies, it doesn't even give readers enough information to look the studies up themselves if they'd like more information (assuming the studies are even publicly available). Since the story is wide ranging in its definition of "pain" giving the reader additional resources would have been very useful. No disease mongering here. The story quotes multiple sources, and clearly identifies whether a source was associated with related research or (in one case) had financial ties to the VR industry. The story mentions a variety of other pain treatment options. The story would have been stronger if it had discussed if anycomparative studies have been done. For example, it refers to pharmaceuticals, but primarily in order to point out that drug use can lead to drug tolerance and be addictive. Similarly, the story mentions that "hypnosis, yoga, and meditation decrease your perception of pain" but only in a context that indicates VR may use a similar mechanism to also reduce pain. Could VR work as well as these treatment options? Could it work better? Could it be used in conjunction with other pain treatment approaches? Those are questions the story doesn't address. Even acknowledging that there is uncertainty in this area is useful to readers curious about this intervention. The story discusses the availability of various VR technologies, but more importantly the story also stresses that much more research needs to be done on VR's utility as a means of effectively treating pain. For example, the story says: "VR's effectiveness still has to be proven, particularly when trying to combat chronic pain"; and "VR has a lot of promise, but it's too early for it to be the standard of care"; and "There's a lot more research needed before VR is going to be widely accepted as a pain relief method." The story is, in essence, focused primarily on the novelty of using VR to treat pain how it might work, why it may become increasingly popular as VR prices drop, and how much work still remains to be done. As a result, we'll give it a Satisfactory rating. However, there are some things that could have been much more clear. For example, one of the researchers who is discussed in the story Hunter Hoffman has been publishing articles on VR's use to address pain since at least 2000. And a search of Google Scholar turns up more than a dozen studies on the subject, including a review article that was published in 2009. In short, while much work certainly does need to be done, there's more work out there than the story might lead readers to believe. The story would have been stronger if it had given readers some inkling of what researchers have already learned, based on the available literature. The story does not appear to be based on a news release. Claim: Hospitals Try Giving Patients a Dose of VR
[A]:
The story focuses on the potential use of virtual reality (VR) headsets as clinical tools for helping patients deal with pain by distracting them. The impetus for the story appears to be the fact that the field of VR technology is experiencing rapid growth, which is making VR equipment less expensive. While the story makes clear that a lot of research needs to be done on VR as a tool for addressing pain, it does mention multiple studies that have already been completed but it doesn't offer much information about what those studies found. It also could have shown more caution about the claims made. For example, the story cites unnamed "proponents of virtual reality" as saying that VR "can be an effective treatment" for Alzheimer's disease, arachnophobia and depression, but that's left unexplained. It also said "the price of a headsetand software is tiny compared to the expense of keeping a patient in the hospital for an extra day." However, there's no indication that use of a VR headset will reduce extra hospital stays, so we're not sure why those two things are being compared without at least some explanation that this is a purely hypothetical economic side-benefit. According to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, more than 25 million U.S. adults experience chronic, or daily, pain. And "nearly 40 million adults (17.6 percent) experience severe levels of pain." Those are big numbers, and pain is a big problem. While there are quite a few treatments available, given the scope of the problem, any new advance in pain management is certainly newsworthy.