Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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.
Example: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

New input case for you: Paragraph: Disclosed Wednesday by the Human Services Department, the settlement locks in payments to five businesses and turns the page on a bitter confrontation that drove many mental health care providers away or out of business completely. Martinez's administration froze payments to 15 mental health service providers in 2013 after an audit identified $36 million in Medicaid overpayments. The state attorney general later cleared the providers of any criminal wrongdoing, but 10 filed lawsuits. Medicaid payments were frozen without any credible allegations of fraud, the settlement states. "Some providers were forced to close their doors and discontinue provision of any behavioral health services," the agreement states. "Other providers were forced to discontinue provision of nearly all behavioral health services. Employees of Providers lost their jobs. Individuals needing behavioral health services in New Mexico were unable to obtain such services." The largest portion of the settlement a 29% share is earmarked for Santa Marta El Mirador of Santa Fe and Alcalde formerly known as Easter Seals El Mirador. The other beneficiaries are Border Area Mental Health Services, Southwest Counseling Center, Southern New Mexico Human Development and Families and Youth Inc. First-year Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham campaigned on rebuilding mental health and substance abuse treatment services in a state with the highest rate of alcohol-related deaths in the nation. Many counties in the sparsely populated state lack licensed providers of mental health services for patients who rely on government assistance, according to a recent study by the U.S. Health and Human Services Department's inspector general. Patsy Romero, CEO of Santa Marta El Mirador, says her organization employs about 200 people, down from 650 people before the shakeup in 2013. Services were discontinued for children and adolescents with severe emotional issues, including alternative classrooms in Espanola and Taos. She said it is still unclear whether the organization will restore discontinued behavior health services. Romero said the settlement "represents the money that we spent as an organization over the last six years to defend ourselves and maintain our business." Claim: State will pay $10M to mental health providers after suit.
Output:
New Mexico will pay out $10 million to resolve the last remaining lawsuits over a shake-up of its behavioral health system in 2013 under the prior administration of Republican Gov. Susana Martinez.