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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: "Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo says women in New York state don't have to worry about new Trump administration rules ending a federal requirement that employers must include birth control coverage in their health insurance plans. The new rules exempt employers from the Obama-era mandate if they have religious or moral reservations to the coverage. But Cuomo said contraception will still be covered in New York state. ""This year, we ensured that whatever happens at the federal level, women in our state will continue to have cost-free access to reproductive health care,"" Cuomo said in a statement. States can set certain insurance standards beyond what the federal government requires. New York state told insurance companies in January they are required to cover birth control and abortion services. That condition still stands, but is Cuomo right that women in New York state are not affected by Trump's decision? Limits to state regulation State regulations, like the one from January, do not apply to all plans. The state Department of Financial Services regulates everything sold on the state health exchange, called New York State of Health. That includes plans sold to individuals and companies with 100 or fewer employees. The agency says the state's birth control mandate covers 1.35 million residents in those plans. Health care offered through companies with more than 100 employees is more complicated. Companies that go the traditional route of buying health coverage through an insurance carrier must adhere to the rules. About 2.5 million people in that category are covered by the state's birth control mandate. But companies that are self-insured, where the employer assumes a large part of the costs,are not regulated by the state, meaning they need not adhere to the state's birth control mandate. About 60 percent of private sector workers in the U.S. who get their health coverage through an employer were enrolled in a self-insured plan in 2015. That's up from 46 percent in 1996, according to research from the Employee Benefit Research Institute. In New York state, about 54 percent of private sector employees who get health insurance through their employer had a self-insured plan last year, according to the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The option is most popular for companies with at least 1,000 employees. Eighty percent of private sector employees at companies that size in New York state are enrolled in a self-insured plan. What about public health insurance? The federal government sets the baseline for what services are covered under Medicaid. Government workers are covered under state regulation, but Medicaid and Medicare enrollees are not.States can add to that list. The list of services covered by Medicaid in New York state goes well beyond the federal standard. New York is one of multiple states where Medicaid covers birth control and abortion services. About a third of the state's population alone is on Medicaid. Our ruling Cuomo said women in New York state ""will continue to have cost-free access to reproductive health care"" because of an action the state took earlier this year. But not every woman is in an insurance planregulated by the state. It's possible a self-insured large employer in New York state could apply for an exemption from the federal birth control mandate. If granted the exemption, the company would not have to provide health coverage for birth control to its employees. Those exemptions are not expected to be widespread, but they are possible. Cuomo's statement needs clarification." Claim: Women in our state will continue to have cost-free access to reproductive health care

Answer: "Cuomo said women in New York state ""will continue to have cost-free access to reproductive health care"" because of an action the state took earlier this year. But not every woman is in an insurance planregulated by the state. It's possible a self-insured large employer in New York state could apply for an exemption from the federal birth control mandate. If granted the exemption, the company would not have to provide health coverage for birth control to its employees. Those exemptions are not expected to be widespread, but they are possible. Cuomo's statement needs clarification."

Question: Paragraph: No discussion of costs, something we always look for and wish would be provided. As already noted, the story explained that the drug "isn't a magic bullet. The study showed that 37 percent of women who got weekly injections of it delivered prematurely, compared to 55 percent of women who got injections of a placebo." Good discussion of concerns and ongoing monitoring of the drug's safety. The story explains the drug "isn't a magic bullet. The study showed that 37 percent of women who got weekly injections of it delivered prematurely, compared to 55 percent of women who got injections of a placebo." No disease-mongering of prematurity or its consequences. The medical director of The March of Dimes was quoted throughout. (Although they are seen as having a very pro-progesterone slant that is not held by consumer/advocacy/health policy/maternity care groups in UK, Australia, and Canada. in those countries surveys of providers uniformly get low utilization responses with the reason stated being need for more data. Similar surveys of US providers (specialty and generalists) show the vast majority use >70% (as opposed to low double digits in more evidence-driven countries) and that mission creep has started. Indications for which it is not tested see regular use in the US.) There was at least the historical perspective on "the last drug thought to prevent premature birth a synthetic estrogen called diethylstilbesterol, or DES." The focus of the story is FDA approval of the drug. Good historical context, explaining that "Interestingly, the drug is not new it's just taken a long and circuitous route to approval." It's clear the story didn't rely solely on a news release. Claim: FDA Approves First Drug To Prevent Preterm Births

Answer: Given that 50% of care is covered by Medicaid and 49% by private payors, the costs for this drug are invisible to the individual. It is administered in clinic or by home health nurses and does not typically have a co-pay structure although patients will sometimes tell providers they can't afford it. News of new drug approvals can be washed over with giddy hype. But not in this story, which offered perspective, context and restraint.

Question: Paragraph: "The cost of the drug wasn't mentioned a big oversight. Other news stories pegged it at about $35,000 a year. Adequate job. The story explained: ""But experts stress that Benlysta is not a miracle drug: It only worked in 35 percent of North American patients tested and was not effective for patients with the deadliest form of the disease. Additionally, it did not show positive results in African Americans, who are disproportionately affected by lupus."" There was no discussion of harms. An NPR story, by comparison, pointed out that ""There are side effects, of course, and some of them are pretty serious. In clinical tests involving about 2,100 people, 11 taking Benlysta died compared with 4 getting placebo. About 6 percent of people taking Benlysta got serious infections compared with 5.2 percent on placebo."" The story offered an interesting historical perspective on the evidence: ""The company originally tested Benlysta, known generically as belimumab, as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. When a mid-stage trial in lupus patients failed to meet researchers' goals in 2006, many analysts wrote the drug off and downgraded the company's stock. But when scientists reanalyzed the data they found that the drug helped block the antibodies that cause lupus symptoms in a subset of patients."" No disease mongering of lupus. Two independent sources were quoted. Not applicable. With no other new drug approved for lupus in 56 years, there's not been much to compare it with. The story did state that some experts thought this ""could prompt development of other drugs that are even more effective in treating the debilitating immune system disorder."" The focus of the story is FDA approval of the new drug. The headline explains that the FDA approved the first new drug for lupus in 56 years. It's clear the story did not rely solely on a news release." Claim: FDA approves first new drug for lupus in 56 years

Answer:
Good caveats, including in the patient profiled, who said, "It's a bittersweet thing for me because I have friends with lupus for whom this drug won't work. There's no one-size-fits-all for lupus and I'm just extremely fortunate that my lupus is mild and is helped by Benlysta." The story should have discussed potential harms and costs. As the story explained, this was not only the first new lupus drug approved in 56 years, but it could be "a milestone that medical experts say could prompt development of other drugs that are even more effective in treating the debilitating immune system disorder."