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: "Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump and his allies, challenged the president's top health official recently on the administration's handling of the 2019 coronavirus outbreak. Dobbs criticized Health and Human Secretary Alex Azar over a lack of transparency in the agency's handling of COVID-19, which has infected nearly 91,000 people globally across 73 countries and led to more than nine American deaths. ""There's a better ratio of testing for the coronavirus in other countries than we maintain here,"" Dobbs said during the March 2 interview on his TV show. ""We're actually screening fewer people because we don't have appropriate testing."" Azar countered that the Trump administration has taken recent steps to roll back regulations and increase the availability of diagnostic test kits to ""hundreds and thousands and millions."" The United States is set to significantly expand its testing capabilities in the coming days and weeks, but Dobbs is correct that the country has lagged behind other nations so far. ""It is true that diagnostic capacity in the U.S. has been lower than in some other countries, but that is changing,"" said Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. It's hard to pinpoint how many people have been tested for the coronavirus, both in the U.S. and around the world. The World Health Organization doesn't track the number of tests administered in each country, and the numbers that are available are constantly updating. In a statement to PolitiFact, a Fox News spokesperson representing Dobbs cited data from the WorldOMeter, a real-time tool that ""shows estimated current numbers based on statistics and projections from the most reputable official organizations,"" according to its website. Using estimates derived from official government sources, the WorldOMeter says at least eight countries South Korea, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Finland, Vietnam and Turkey have given more tests relative to the size of their populations than the United States. That lines up with experts' analyses and with what multiple news outlets have reported. Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said South Korea ""has screened at least thousands, and Guangdong, China, has screened at least hundreds of thousands,"" citing a WHO report on the outbreak in China, where the virus was first detected. South Korea ramped up testing by building drive-thru screening clinics for speedy assessments, according to local reports. Other countries, like Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Italy have also conducted thousands of diagnostic tests. ""We have done nothing like what other countries have done,"" Lipsitch said, noting that the U.S. had, until recently, limited not only the number of labs that were allowed to conduct tests on suspected cases, but also the number of patients that were eligible to be screened. It's difficult to say just how far behind the U.S. has fallen, due to the murkiness around the number of administered tests. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped releasing a public count of tests on March 2. The administration's public statements haven't cleared it up. On Feb. 29, the CDC reported testing 472 Americans. A day later, Azar told ABC News the U.S. had tested over 3,600 people. And a spokesperson for HHS, Azar's agency, told us on March 3 that the CDC had tested samples from more than 1,200 patients. ""I don't know how to track U.S. tests any more,"" Lipsitch said. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar speaks at the White House about the coronavirus on Feb. 28, 2020, in Washington. (AP/Vucci) The CDC stopped posting testing data as more state and local public-health labs have been brought into the fold, said Nancy Messonnier, a top CDC official, said during a March 3 briefing. ""With more and more testing done at states, these numbers would not be representative of the testing being done nationally,"" she said. An HHS spokesperson told us that the department doesn't know how many additional tests have been administered by those state and local labs, adding that those labs can now test up to 15,000 people and are expected to be able to test as many as 75,000 people by March 6. The U.S. test count should rise into the millions as IDT, a commercial manufacturer, and other commercial and academic labs begin producing their own tests soon, according to HHS. The government's initial testing effort was hindered by flaws with the CDC's early test kits and restrictions that had limited which labs could run the tests and which patients could be tested. When the first U.S. coronavirus was detected, the country brushed aside the WHO test used by other nations and leaned on the CDC to develop and mass produce a more complicated test capable of detecting other viruses in addition to the coronavirus, according to reports. The test kits went out in early February. But some state labs that received them reported that flaws in the tests were triggering inconclusive results. Those states had to ship samples out to the CDC's offices in Atlanta for results until the CDC fixed the problem weeks later. Since then, the Food and Drug Administration has given labs and hospitals across the country the go-ahead to administer their own tests before the FDA finishes reviewing them, so long as those tests are proven to work. That should lead to more testing, experts said. The CDC also modified its screening criteria to expand testing for some people with severe respiratory symptoms who did not travel to China or come into known contact with a coronavirus patient. Previously, travel to China or exposure to the virus were preconditions for screening. Adequate testing is essential to getting an accurate count of U.S. cases, experts said. Testing is also key for treating patients and identifying people who might be infected but don't show symptoms, said Richard Watanabe, professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California. ""The latest data suggests the incubation period for COVID-19 can be as long as a couple of weeks,"" Watanabe said. Despite the recent acceleration, Lipsitch said U.S. testing is happening ""very slowly and at a level that is still paltry"" compared with some other countries. Dobbs said that the United States is ""actually screening fewer people (for the coronavirus than other countries) because we don't have appropriate testing."" Experts told us that to date, the United States has lagged behind other countries, though numbers are imprecise. An error with the CDC's early test kits contributed to the United States' relatively low screening numbers. The administration has taken steps to make testing more widely available. With that additional information." Claim: The United States is "actually screening fewer people (for the coronavirus than other countries) because we don't have appropriate testing.

A: The CDC has stopped publicly reporting the number of tests it's administered. So far, the United States has lagged behind other nations in terms of coronavirus testing. It has recently taken steps to ramp up its testing capabilities. Until recently, the U.S. had insisted that only the CDC's test could be used despite flaws in some early kits and that only certain patients could get tested.
****
Q: Paragraph: "Patients used to pay $10,000 a year for cancer drugs, but now they're paying $10,000 a month, according to HBO talk show host Bill Maher. That's a message circulating on Facebook recently, promoted by the""Bill Maher Fanpage."" A reader asked us to check it out. The quote comes from the Oct. 2 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher discussed Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company that jacked up the cost of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 essentially overnight. ""Not that (Turing CEO Martin) Shkreli is unusual for the pharmaceutical industry,"" Maher said on his show. ""Fifteenyears ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month because this cartel owns the U.S. government every bit as much as Mexican drug lords own theirs."" It's well known that the cost of health care is on the rise,but has the annual cost of cancer drugs really increased so dramatically in just a decade and a half? Maher's team sent us links to some news articles about the rising cost of cancer drugs, and we tracked down information that speaks to his claim. The best information we could nail down is the cost of anticancer drugs at launch,the initial price when the Federal Drug Administration approves a drug. These are the sticker prices set by the pharmaceutical companies, not the prices patients actually pay out of pocket, which are reduced by insurance payments, patient assistance programs and other discounts. Costs increases, though, are often passed on to consumers. Maher has a point that cancer drug costs are on the rise. We charted the launch costs of cancer drugs the FDA approved since 1999, using a list compiled by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The second half of Maher's statement -- that cancer drugs now cost about $10,000 a month -- is also on solid ground. Of drugs approved in 2015, the monthly average cost is $11,319. And experts in the field often cite that $10,000 figure themselves. Because many cancer drugs are not administered to patients for a full year, it's difficult to determine an average annual cost, so the first half of Maher's statement -- that they cost about $10,000 a year 15 years ago -- is hard to nail down. To his point, though, the monthly cost of a new drug was dramatically lower in 2000 than what it is now at about $4,634. One of the news articles that Maher's team sent us is an academic article in the Journal of Oncology Practice that supports his statement. The report reads, ""The average cancer drug price for approximately one year of therapy or a total treatment duration was less than $10,000 before 2000."" Maher's statement is ""in the ballpark,"" if not an understatement, said Rena Conti, a health economist at the University of Chicago who researches cancer drug prices. In a 2015 paper Conti authored with three other leading health economists, she examined the launch cost of anticancer drugs controlled for inflation and the benefit to the patient (how much it prolongs life expectancy). For example, in 1995, anticancer drugs cost $54,100 for an additional year of life, the study found. In 2005, drugs cost $139,100 for the same benefit, and the price grew to $207,000 in 2013. In the United States, pharmaceutical companies set their own drug prices. What's pushing them to increase the costs? It's not necessarily that cancer drugs are getting better and are thus worth more. Conti's research concluded that just about one-fifth of the cancer drug cost increase can be attributed to a better product. There are two primary forces behind annual cancer drug cost increases, Conti said: First, pharmaceutical companies estimate a ""zone of indifference"" -- based on last year's prices, how much more would buyers be willing to pay? Second, rebates and discounts for drugs have also increased over time, and this creates an incentive for drug companies to increase their costs alongside the discounts. Pharmaceutical companies defend drug price increases by emphasizing that the revenue funds innovative research and that drugs lower overall health care costs by treating illnesses. Because there's no formal price regulation and competition in the industry is rare, ""It really is a system where there's no downward pressure on drug prices,"" said Peter Bach, director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Center for Health Policy and Outcomes in an interview with Fortune. Our ruling Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn't easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren't used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify,though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher's numbers are a little squishy, but they're in the ballpark." Claim: 15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month.

A: "Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn't easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren't used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify,though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher's numbers are a little squishy, but they're in the ballpark."
****
Q: Paragraph: A poster on the wall listed the four warning signs: bloating, feeling of fullness, pelvic pain and frequent need to urinate. "We can justify them to be anything," Giangreco said. That's what she had done. Giangreco, 70, started noticing some mild stomach issues in November an upset stomach one day, constipation another. Nothing she gave much thought. By December, the problems became more frequent, but she shrugged them off. She hadn't been eating the healthiest. That must be causing the problems, she reasoned. But by January, the discomfort was more regular. One Tuesday evening, Giangreco was so bloated she couldn't get her pants to fasten. By that Saturday, the pain had become unbearable. Her husband took her to the emergency room, where she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and referred to Dr. Gina Westhoff, a gynecologic oncologist at Legacy Medical Group in Salmon Creek. A few days later, on Jan. 31, she was sitting in the office looking at the poster outlining the signs for ovarian cancer. After her diagnosis, Giangreco told every woman she knew about the warning signs. Last week, she spent a couple of hours at lunchtime stopping women as they walked through Legacy Salmon Creek Medical Center and educating them about the symptoms. She shared her story and passed out bookmarks with the warning signs. "I think it's unfair to us that there is no test, and there's not as much education as there needs to be," Giangreco said. "If I can save one life, then that's why I'm walking this path." Westhoff and the Ovarian Cancer Alliance of Oregon and Southwest Washington joined in the outreach efforts at Legacy Salmon Creek. They hope to educate women not only about the signs of ovarian cancer but also about symptoms and prevention for other gynecologic cancers (uterine, cervical, vaginal and vulvar). September is Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month. NO TEST TO DETECT OVARIAN CANCER Knowing the signs is important, Westhoff said, because there is no screening test for most gynecologic cancers. "The only screening test we have is the pap test, and the pap test only detects cervical cancer," Westhoff said. Cancer is better treated when caught early. But, without screening tests, many gynecologic cancers are caught at more advanced stages, she said. "It you can catch ovarian cancer at stage 1, there is a 95 percent chance you will live five years," Westhoff said. Five years is considered "survival" for ovarian cancer. "At stage 3, which is considered late, that percentage goes down to 39 or 40 percent," she said. Many of the warning signs, however, are vague and often ignored, Westhoff said. And because of the organs involved, people often shirk away from talking about the cancers, she said. "Because these cancers are below the belt and are private organs, they're not talked about," Westhoff said. "Thirty years ago, the same was true about breast cancer." Talking about the cancers is not only important to make women aware of the symptoms but also to drive research funding to develop screening tests, Westhoff said. Until those tests exist, though, women need to be their own best advocates, she said. A sentiment echoed by Giangreco. "I just want people to listen to their body," Giangreco said. "And maybe go to the doctor a little earlier than I did." ___ Information from: The Columbian, http://www.columbian.com Claim: Vancouver woman sharing signs of ovarian cancer with others.

A:
Teri Giangreco didn't know the signs of ovarian cancer until she was sitting in her new gynecologic oncologist's office discussing her stage 3 ovarian cancer diagnosis.
****