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.

Paragraph: Most people know roughly what a bottle of vitamin D supplements might cost them, so the lack of information on cost is not a significant gap. We appreciate that the story provideddata showing the large and growing amount our society is spending on vitamin Dsupplements ($430 million in 2009), with apparently little health benefit to show for it. The story was mostly concerned with discussing the lack of benefit fromtaking extra vitamin D and calcium. And in this area it excels. While the story does lack precision when itsuggests thatadolescent girls should be getting more calcium (it neverspecifies how much they are getting now, how much more they'd need to meet the recommendations, or what benefits they might expect from this increased intake), it would be difficult for a journalist to come up with any sort of quantifiable benefit or harm estimate from the IOM report. The story captured the overall gist of the problem, which is that the evidence base is complex and still inadequate. The story notes that, contrary to the claims of many advocates for increased supplemental vitamin D, there is evidence thathigh levels of vitamin D mayhave adverseeffects, such as increased risk for fractures and an increasein the overall death rate. The story also explained that too much calcium has been linked to increased risk of kidney stones and, more tentatively, heart disease. The story did a good job of describing how the expert committee conducted its review and what evidence they found. Importantly, it noted that claims of benefit fromextra vitamin D are based onobservational studiesthat most scientists agree "cannot determine cause and effect." We also like that the story solicitedopinions froma variety of expertswith noobvious stake in the controversy. This produced a number of quotes that emphasizedthe need for restraint when interpreting the research on vitamin D. Examples: "I think thisreport will make people more cautious" and "The onus is on thepeople who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show itis safe before they push it on people." Although we agree with the story's skeptical overall message,we think itmay haveslammed the door just a bit too hard on the possibilityof benefit from supplemental vitamin D. While claims of benefit may not be supported by the currentlyavailable evidence, they have not been conclusively disproved in randomized controlled studies, either. In fact,research isnow underway to determine whether the benefits foundin observational studies of vitamin D can be replicated in more rigorously designed trials. The story probably should have mentioned this research, and left the door to potential benefits open just a crack. No disease-mongering here. The diversity of independent voices included in this story is a real strength. Although it solicits the obligatory comment from a supplement industry spokesman, it didn't go out of its way to find any of the more widely known vitamin D experts,someof whom have been issuing recommendations that are untenable based on current evidence. The enthusiasm of some of these researchersmight beexplained bytheir significant career and financialinterests in promoting vitamin D. Notapplicable for this story. The approaches discussed are not new, and there's notreally any alternative to getting adequate amountsof these essential nutrients. The availability of vitamin D from diet, sunlight and supplements is clear from the story. The novelty of vitamin D and calcium is not really in question, so we'll call this not applicable. This story was not based on a news release. Claim: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements
In one particularly effective passage, the story quoted a representative of a supplement industry group who disagreed with the report, saying that higherlevels of vitamin D could be beneficial. But it then seguedimmediatelyinto an explanation of why claims from supplementation advocates "are not supported by the available evidence."The key problem, as the story points out, isthat these claimsare based almost exclusively on observationalstudies that can't prove cause and effect and are often skewed by factors the researchers haven't accounted for. Proponents of supplementation also have tended to downplay thepossibility that higher doses of vitamin Dand calcium might cause harma stance which the storynotesmay not be justified. We applaudthis story'seffort toshow readers where the weight of the evidence lies on this issue. Vitamin D isthe latest in a longline of "miracle" nutrients that people have turnedto in the hope of improvingtheir health. As we'velearnedfrom copiousprevious experience, these supplements rarely work as advertised andcan sometimes cause harm at the higher doses people often think will be beneficial for them. More isn't necessarilybetter when it comes to vitamin Dor most other health care interventions for that matter.

Paragraph: Though modest, it was the first such price drop in 45 years, according to nonpartisan economic experts at the federal Department of Health and Human Services, who deliver an annual report on the nation's health care spending. The price drop was for retail pharmacy prescriptions, not medications administered in hospitals or doctor's offices. HHS experts said the last time retail prescription drug prices declined was in 1973, when they went down by 0.2%. The price drop comes amid questionable prospects for major legislation to curb prescription drug costs. Nonetheless, it was a nugget of decent news in a sobering, broader report on rising U.S. health care spending. The HHS report found that spending on prescription medicines at pharmacies accounted for 9% of the total $3.6 trillion national health care tab in 2018. Total U.S. health care spending grew by 4.6% last year, averaging $11,172 per person. In the real world, U.S. spending is concentrated on the sickest patients, with 5% of the population accounting for half of costs. Because of strong overall economic growth last year, health care spending as a share of the national economy declined slightly, from 17.9% in 2017 to 17.7%, the report found. Legislation pending in Congress to curb drug costs would mainly benefit older people on Medicare, who are the biggest consumers of medicines. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is forging ahead with a floor vote next week on her bill authorizing Medicare to negotiate prices for the costliest drugs, including insulin. Under her bill, private insurance plans would be able to get Medicare's prices as well. But President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are solidly opposed to Medicare negotiations. Instead Trump is backing a bipartisan Senate bill that would require drugmakers to pay rebates to Medicare if they hike prices above inflation. As a candidate Trump had called for allowing Medicare to negotiate directly. Both bills would cap what Medicare recipients must pay annually in out-of-pocket costs for their prescriptions. The HHS report made no forecast of future prescription drug prices. It's unclear if the 1% price decline seen last year may be the beginning of a sustained trend or was merely a temporary pullback by drug companies getting pummeled by Trump and lawmakers of both parties. Thursday's report found that nearly 9 out of 10 prescriptions dispensed are for generic drugs, which puts downward pressure on prices. Even though prices of brand-name drugs increased more moderately, they still accounted for most of the spending on prescriptions nearly 79%. The government's findings on prices for brand-name drugs dovetailed with an analysis earlier this year by The Associated Press. In the first seven months of 2019, drugmakers raised list prices for brand-name prescription medicines by a median of 5%, the AP found. That was down from about 9% or 10% over those months the prior four years. The AP's findings suggest that an easing in drug prices may continue this year. Reducing prescription drug costs remains one of the top priorities for consumers. The White House claims that Trump has already delivered historic price cuts, but a recent Gallup poll found that 66% of adults believe the president has made little or no progress. The government study was published online by the journal Health Affairs. Claim: US report: Prescription drug prices down slightly last year.
Prices for prescription drugs edged down by 1% last year, a rare result driven by declines for generics and slow, low growth in the cost of brand-name medications, the government said Thursday.

Paragraph: The report notes that combined sales of these drugs account for more than $10 billion annually. The article does not mention comparative costs for other ways of managing the medical conditions these drugs treat. The news article does not quantify the potential benefits of treatment with heartburn or antacid drugs. They are very effective in preventing acid-related disease. An additional sentence or two might help readers weigh their pros and cons. The article provides balanced information about the frequency and seriousness of one potential harm of taking antacidship fractures. Most other research has turned up relatively minor side effects (e.g. gastrointestinal discomfort, diarrhea), though a 2005 study suggested that these drugs might make people more susceptible to virulent clostridium difficile infections that produce dangerous watery diarrhea. Though the article ably employs a quote by Dr. Alan Buchman to explain the chief limitation of the study's designthat it cannot prove cause and effect, and that the patients simply may "have some other problem that increases the risk of fractures"the story could have stated more clearly the drawbacks inherent in a retrospective study of a large patient database. There are no obvious elements of disease mongering. Hip fracture is common and often devastating. As the article suggests, it is the final insult on the slope toward death for one in five people. It dispatches another one in five to nursing homes for the rest of their lives. However, the article provides information only on relative risk of hip fractures, not their absolute risk. The very large relative risks cited may overstate the absolute risk of these medicines, even if there is a true risk of fracture. The news article reports the funding source for the study, cites three sourcesthe study's author, an academic gastroenterologist, and a spokeswoman for the manufacturer of Prevacidand provides adequate information to judge their potential conflicts of interest. The article explains that heartburn drugs may cause hip fractures by blocking calcium absorption. It suggests two potential solutions either "simply to consume more calcium," or to take the drugs in lower doses. Unfortunately, it fails to note that there is conflicting research to support the calcium-blocking hypothesis or that there is little research to show that calcium consumption can offset the increased risk of fracture among people taking antacids. More importantly, the article could have offered three additional recommendations: (1) all patients may not need to take these medicines on a regular basis; (2) lifestyle and dietary changescutting back on caffeine, alcohol, cigarettes, and acidic foodscan also help; and (3) some patients taking one class of drugs known as proton pump inhibitors (e.g. Nexium, Prevacid, Prisolec) could safely switch over to another class known as histamine blockers (e.g. Zantac) that were associated with fewer hip fractures in this study. Histamine blockers have a very safe long-term record (20+ years). Most readers are likely to know about heartburn drugs or antacids that suppress the production of gastric acid. They are, as the LA Times says, "among the most widely used in the United States." Some of these medicines are also available over-the-counter without a prescription, potentially useful information omitted from the news article. The report states that the treatment is widely used and accurately implies that it is not new. No obvious use of text from a press release. Claim: Less acid, brittler hips? Some heartburn drugs may be behind an increase in fractures
This is a compact (only 566 words), nicely reported story that places a potentially important development in its appropriate context. The researchers went to great lengths in their published study to weed out variables other than heartburn drugs that might explain the increase in hip fractures that they observed. Nevertheless, they acknowledge that their retrospective review of a large patient database is inherently incapable of proving cause and effect. The quote from Dr. Alan Buchman in the news story summarizes this chief drawback well: The patients, he notes, may "have some other problem that increases the risk of fractures." The study provides reasonable evidence to support the news article's recommendations that patients should only use the drugs if they need them, and even then take them only at their lowest beneficial dose. Whether "the solution is to simply consume more calcium" remains unknown, unfortunately. Additional advice on the benefits of lifestyle and dietary changes would have been welcome, and perhaps a note on the relatively lower fracture risk associated with the class known as histamine blockers. In the end, the take home point may be that patients and doctors should periodically question the need to take any medicine used over the long term, even ones thought to be very safe.