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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The news release includes information about costs. We would have liked a little more context. The release states: "The costs associated with home infusion were also consistently lower than services provided in a health care facility, with savings ranging between $1,928 and $2,974 per course of treatment." We need to know what percentage of savings that is per course of treatment. If the whole course costs $100,000, then saving $1,928 is a pretty small percentage. If the whole course is $10,000, than a savings of $1,928 looks more substantial. We found the news release skimmed over giving crucial numbers and metrics for benefits. Separate from the cost benefit to home infusion versus hospital or clinic infusion, the release should have given us some numbers for safety. Here is what the release stated (emphasis ours): "The research showed that patients receiving intravenous therapy at home had as good or better clinical outcomes as those patients who received the same therapy in a traditional health care setting. In addition, patients overwhelmingly preferred receiving their infusion therapies at home, reporting fewer disruptions in personal schedules and responsibilities. We need numbers to demonstrate how "as good" the clinical outcomes were. We need numbers to represent "overwhelmingly preferred." By what percentage did what number of patients demonstrate preference? This is where the release could have taken some quantitative data from the study. The word "harms" does not appear in the news release. During intravenous infusions there are complications that may arise. The release does not mention harm, even to dismiss the probability as rare. The study being reported is a systematic literature review that only considered 13 prior studies. The release does not address the limitations of a literature review or give us the total number of patients represented by the 13 studies. Only 5 of the 13 studies used in the analysis addressed outcomes. One had no comparison group ("However, no adjustment for confounders was performed, and higher OPAT success rates were likely due to purposeful selection of younger, healthier patients for OPAT therapy," according to the published study). In another study, "IPAT patients were selected from a time period during which OPAT was not available for any patients, minimizing selection bias by the matching fact." In any case, less than half of the studies looked at outcome data and those that did involved different diseases from different time periods, some had control groups and some did not. We don't think the evidence is strong enough to suggest outcomes were improved. The bias inherent in CVS employees culling the studies is also concerning. A better description of the review's search and selection process may have helped allay any concerns about studies being cherry-picked. There is no disease mongering. The release is clear that the study was done by the CVS Health Research Institute. Since this is a news release from a profit-making company that operates directly to sell services under study, we hope the readers quickly understand there is an inherent conflict. This is the equivalent of a Coca Cola study about the benefits of drinking their product. The release explains the alternatives of clinic or hospital infusion compared to home infusion. Home infusion services are widely available. Their reimbursement is not widely available. The release says "clinical outcomes and quality of care have not previously been systematically evaluated." The release doesn't rely on any unreasonable or unjustified language. However, we do not think the news release proves the words used in the headline that say "Home Infusion Care Improves Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life While Reducing Overall Costs." Based on a literature review, which does not randomize people into apples-to-apples comparison, you cannot claim to show better outcomes. The release does not offer any quantified benefits to support medical outcomes and doesn't provide quantified information about quality of life improvement. The fact that patients prefer home infusion to travel to a clinic is not by itself a proof that their lives have been improved. As we wrote in the benefits section above we are not given numbers to prove by what amount patients prefer home infusion. Claim: CVS Health Research Institute Study Shows that Home Infusion Care Improves Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life While Reducing Overall Costs

Ex Output:
This news release describes the cost savings and safety of home infusion services from 13 previously published studies compared with infusion services at a clinic or hospital. Home infusion appears safe and clinically effective while saving money in the studies reviewed, but the release does not address limits in the review. We aren't given any numbers to back up the claims that clinical outcomes were equal and that patients preferred the home setting. The release notes that CVS has a home infusion businessCoramso at least they make this transparent. We applaud CVS for attempting to quantify the cost savings and other potential benefits of the service and the claim that there are advantages are likely valid but some context/background from other, independent studies would be helpful. Besides the lack of quantification, the release doesn't delve into the potential risks from using the home infusion service. Treatments for chronic diseases, which often require drugs administered through infusion, are one of the fastest growing costs in the US health care system. If patients can be served at home, rather than in outpatient clinics or hospitals, it saves both money and time. But outcomes studies, which compare outcomes and safety between locations, are essential to judging whether home infusion is equal to clinic or hospital infusion. This release does not go far enough with numbers to quantify benefits and risks. We also see that CVS has a conflict of interest, because they have a business arm, Coram, that sells home infusion services. It appears this release (and study) are getting attention just as Congress is "discussing how to implement a comprehensive home infusion benefit for Medicare beneficiaries."

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Bryant's action came despite a federal judge's ruling last year that struck down a less-restrictive law limiting abortions in the state. The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights called the new measure "cruel and clearly unconstitutional" and said it would sue Mississippi to try to block the law from taking effect on July 1. After a bill signing ceremony at the state Capitol, Bryant told reporters that he's not worried about lawsuits. "They don't have to sue us. It's up to them," Bryant said. "If they do not believe in the sanctity of life, these that are in organizations like Planned Parenthood, we will have to fight that fight. But it is worth it." Mississippi is one of several states that have considered bills this year to ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is found. Abortion opponents are emboldened by new conservatives on the Supreme Court and are seeking cases to challenge Roe v. Wade, the court's 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. A federal judge in 2018 struck down a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, saying it is unconstitutional. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the only remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi. "Lawmakers didn't get the message," Hillary Schneller, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement Thursday. "They are determined to rob Mississippians of the right to abortion, and they are doing it at the expense of women's health and taxpayer money. This ban just like the 15-week ban the governor signed a year ago is cruel and clearly unconstitutional." The law that Bryant signed Thursday says a physician who performs an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected could face revocation of his or her Mississippi medical license. It also says abortions could be allowed after a fetal heartbeat is found if a pregnancy endangers a woman's life or one of her major bodily functions. The House and Senate both rejected efforts to allow exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Georgia and Tennessee are among the states considering similar bills. Kentucky's law banning abortion after the detection of a heartbeat was immediately challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union when Republican Gov. Matt Bevin signed it on March 14, and a federal judge temporarily blocked it. A federal judge on Wednesday also blocked another Kentucky law that would ban abortion for women seeking to end their pregnancies because of the gender, race or disability of the fetus. Dr. Leana Wen, a physician who is president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement Thursday that the new Mississippi law "is a dangerous policy that criminalizes a safe, standard medical procedure and will endanger women's lives." "Patients must be empowered to make their own health care decisions, in consultation with their doctor and their family, and doctors must be able to provide health care to our patients without the threat of prison time," Wen said. "We cannot accept a world where the right to abortion care depends on where you live or how much money you make." Jameson Taylor, vice president for policy at the conservative Mississippi Center for Public Policy, praised Bryant for signing the bill. "The heartbeat bill is popular because everyone knows a heartbeat is a sign of life," Taylor said in a statement. "Intellectual and scientific honesty demands a reconsideration of Roe, a 50-year-old decision based on old science. 3-D and 4-D ultrasounds are showing women that their unborn child is alive." ____ Follow Emily Wagster Pettus on Twitter at http://twitter.com/EWagsterPettus . Claim: Mississippi governor signs 'heartbeat' abortion law.

Ex Output:
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant on Thursday signed one of the strictest abortion laws in the nation a measure that bans most abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, about six weeks into pregnancy.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: In 2004, the Target retail chain announced a new corporate policy that banned Salvation Army bellringers and their collection kettles from Target storefronts, a move that drew immediate criticism and condemnation from many shoppers: Target has decided to NOT allow the Salvation Army to ring the bell for the holiday season. I love the bell ringers and what they stand for. Each person gives up their time to collect money for the needy. The holiday season is the perfect time to remind us to share our blessings with others. I try to give something to each bell ringer, no matter how small I know the Salvation Army will put it to good use. Target announced this week that Salvation Army bell-ringers will no longer be allowed in front of their stores during the holiday season. The retailer tells Channel 8 Eyewitness News, "Like many nationwide retailers, Target Corporation has a long standing no solicitation policy that must be applied across all of its stores." The Lancaster County Salvation Army says there's no hard feelings, just a rethinking of ways to keep the kettles out and the bells ringing. Nearly a quarter of all donations came from Lincoln's two Target stores. Last year, the Lincoln/Lancaster County Salvation Army raised more than a 120-thousand dollars during their kettle drive. If you believe in the Salvation Army and want to encourage Target to rethink their decision then go to the link above and send them your comment. And forward this email. The Salvation Army will not be allowed to have their bell-ringers and kettles outside Target stores this Christmas season. I can't think of a better example of the joy of Christmas than the work of The Salvation Army. Founded in 1865 as a religious and charitable mission, it provided over $2.5 billion in service throughout the U.S. during the past year. Last year they collected about $9 million outside the 1300+ Target stores. Three years ago Wal-Mart restricted soliciting by the Salvation Army & others to 14 days a year. They remain the number 1 collection site for the Salvation Army, with $12 million in donations last year. My response is to make Target a "target" to avoid, and when I see the bell-ringers from the Salvation Army at other stores to drop in a little more and tell them that is my contribution for Target. If you agree, please pass this on. P. S. Target says they give over $67 million per years to various worthy causes one of them being sending drops to the contestants of the show "Survivor" a really needy cause!!!! The retailer already had a no-solicitation policy in place at their stores, but they previously had made an exception for the Salvation Army. That exception finally went by the wayside when in a September 2004 statement, Target spokesperson Carolyn Brookter said the chain "determined that if we continue to allow the Salvation Army to solicit, then it opens the door to other groups that wish to solicit our guests." "It's becoming increasingly difficult to have an exception to our policy, so we decided we would have no exceptions," Brookter said. "This year we just said it's time to make our solicitation policy consistent." A copy of Target's corporate "No Solicitation Policy," as found on their web site, now explains: Based on Target's commitment to maintaining a distraction-free shopping experience for our guests, we do not allow Salvation Army bell ringers outside our store nationwide. However, Target proudly supports The Salvation Army, which serves more than 30 million people across the United States each year. Some of our year-round efforts include grants to local chapters, volunteerism and in-kind donations to help those who need it most. Target also partners with The Salvation Army to support its disaster relief efforts in communities across the country. Target's change in policy was undoubtedly detrimental to the Salvation Army's kettle campaign, which raises up to 70 percent of the Salvation Army's total annual income for efforts such as funding shelters, offering meal programs, and providing Christmas toys, after-school programs and emergency assistance: The "miracle" of Christmas is repeated over and over again through the joy of caring and sharing. The traditional red kettle is an integral part of the Christmas scene, with millions of dollars donated each year to aid needy families, seniors, and the homeless, in keeping with the spirit of the season. Donations provide Christmas dinners, clothing, and toys for families in need. Financial assistance also helps with basic necessities, along with seasonal aid. Families of prisoners often are included. Volunteers distribute gifts to shut-ins in hospitals and nursing homes, and shelters are open for sit-down dinners. The Salvation Army endeavors to bring spiritual light and love to those it serves at Christmas so that the real meaning of the season is not forgotten. Many families receive aid over a period of months after the Christmas season as well, people struggling with difficult family, emotional, or employment problems. In November 2006, the Salvation Army announced Target had launched a multi-faceted Christmas partnership with it that would include an online version of The Salvation Army's Angel Tree Program and a donation by the retailer of $1 million to get that program up and running. Target also promised to donate 100% of proceeds from the sales of a limited edition Harvey Lewis angel ornament accented with red Swarovski crystals to the Sally Ann. As of 2011, Target proclaimed that they were providing $250,000 in gift cards to Salvation Army chapters as part of their partnership with that organization: With gift-giving season in full swing, we took a short break to spend some time with longtime Target partner The Salvation Army. During this time of year, people across the country gather together to give the most important kind of gift helping those in need. For each of the last two years, Target has provided $250,000 in gift cards to 96 Salvation Army Chapters to assist their holiday toy drives and Angel Tree program. But, the holidays aren't the only time to lend a hand. Year-round, Target proudly supports The Salvation Army as it serves more than 30 million people in the United States. Grants to local chapters, support from team member volunteers, donations and support of disaster relief efforts are just a few of the ways Target helps out. In fact, over the past five years, Target has provided cash and in-kind donations totaling more than $13.6 million to all The Salvation Army locations nationwide. Claim: Target does not allow Salvation Army bellringers to solicit donations on stores premises.

Ex Output:
Since 2004 the retail chain's "no solicitation" policy has kept Salvation Army bellringers away from Target stores.