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: There will be 50,000 more nurses going into the NHS. The government has committed to do this by 2024/25. Not all of these nurses will be 'new'. The government have announced the end of hospital parking charges for patients. In December it was announced that hospitals in England will have to provide free car parking to frequent hospital visitors, blue badge holders and at certain times to staff and parents of child patients. The government will build 40 new hospitals. Six hospitals in England are getting the money to upgrade their buildings within the next five years. Up to 38 hospitals are getting money to develop plans for their hospitals between 2025 and 2030, but not to actually begin any building work. The government is putting 20,000 more police on the streets. The government has committed to do this. If this happens it will take the number of police in England and Wales to almost, but not quite the same level as it was at in 2010. The government gave the police much more use of Tasers to help deal with street crime. The Home Office announced police in England and Wales can bid for part of a fund to equip their force with more Tasers. Final funding allocations will be announced in February. The government are lifting the living wage by the biggest ever amount, up to 8.72, and it will go up to 10.50. The national living wage set by the government is set to rise to 8.72 in April, the largest rise since it was put in place in 2016. It was also announced at last year's Conservative party conference that it would rise to 10.50 within the next five years. Claim 1 of 7 Claim: The government are lifting the living wage by the biggest ever amount, up to 8.72, and it will go up to 10.50.
The national living wage set by the government is set to rise to 8.72 in April, the largest rise since it was put in place in 2016. It was also announced at last year's Conservative party conference that it would rise to 10.50 within the next five years.

Paragraph: Costs are mentioned reasonablyearly in the story, and with specificity. This was goodto see. Benefits of these tests are touted, but not quantified. An officer of the National Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance, an advocacy group, testifies that the outcomes of women who have surgery from a gynecologic oncologist"are much better." But we don't knowwhat that means. Is it longer survival? Later the story explainsthat combining the two blood tests with assessment by a clinician "better determined the patients who should be referred to a [gynecological oncologist], identifying well over 90 percent of the women who actually had cancer." (Note that this statistic reflects only referral to a gyn-onc, not patient survival.) But how does that compare to thestandard assessment tools? A 2016 study describedas publication "of the first clinical utility data" demonstrating that use of OVA1 resulted in referral of ovarian patients to gynecologic oncologists offers similar outcomes but is not mentioned in the story. We're told thatexperts fear that these tests could lead to unnecessary surgery or delayed diagnosis, and that's sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story could have delved into a bit more of the specifics: What is the evidencefor these concerns? What are the false positive and false negative rates? These details areusefulbecause the point of the story is that clinicians are not using these tests to try to improve outcomes of ovarian cancer patients. Are the possible debitsoruncertainties driven by lack of clinical datacontributing to these decisions? There isn't sufficient information on the evidence behindthese tests. The FDA has approved ROMA and OVA1 for use, but the studies that led to that decision are not discussed. Nor is there sufficient discussion of why the physician groups that write guidelines haven't endorsed the tests. Their concerns are raised, but the evidence is not presented or analyzed. A late diagnosis of ovarian cancer is way too common, and the outcome is grim. At the same time, the anecdotes seem to highlight the sad aspect of the disease without necessarily providing a relevant case in which the tests described would have helped (any more than a basic blood test would have). The companies responsible for developing and marketing these two tests are front and center in this story, with scientists affiliated with the companies clearly identified. At least two sources in the storyone of them a scientist affiliated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Networkappear to be independent of the companies. The story makes it clear that no effective early detection screening test exists. Existing strategiesthe CA125 blood test and vaginal ultrasoundare mentioned and then discounted, in part via a personal narrative of a young woman who received a late diagnosis of cancer. While data-driven specifics aren't included on why standard methods aren't sufficient, this is enough to rate Satisfactory. Adirect comparison ofsurvival stemming from existing diagnostic tests relative to survival stemming from ROMA and OVA1 would have strengthened the story. If those numbers aren't available, that should have been pointed out. The story makes it clear that the two blood tests have been available since 2009. The storymentions that the tests are combinations of existing tests with a "proprietary" formula (essentially a risk prediction tool) to translate the results to likelihood of cancer. But, the article should havetalked about whether the tests, other than CA-125, have been used before. This appears to be an enterprise story, and does not rely on a news release. Claim: Ovarian cancer blood tests: Available, not widely used
This is a story about the apparent underuse of two blood testsROMA and OVA1that are FDA approved to help clinicians decide whether surgery toinvestigateabnormal growthsshould be performed by a gynecologic oncologist ("gyn-onc") trained to remove malignant ovarian cancer, rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist or a general surgeon. The gist of the story is that the tests have not been widely adopted in the ensuing years, "largely because they haven't been recommended by the physician groups that write the care guidelines." The story hit on a lot of important notesit told readers the cost of these tests, and it included comments from independent sources. What is not clear is the extent to which clinical evidence supports the increased use of the two tests. We're told they accurately picked up about 90 percent of cancer cases. But we're not told how that compares to standard methods of detection. As the story notes, surviving ovarian cancer is an uphill battleit is often a deadly disease caught too late. Any procedure that increases the probability of survival is worth careful consideration.

Paragraph: "A hot-button topic in Missouri this year has been the state budget, a large part of which goes to social services, primarily Medicaid. With more budget cuts looming, funding these services may be hard to maintain. That's what state Sen. Caleb Rowden suggested in mid-January before Gov. Eric Greitens unveiled his proposed state budget. At a legislative breakfast Jan. 20, Rowden said, ""This would be the first year, if everything holds true, we will spend over $10 billion of our state budget on Medicaid out of the $28 billion budget."" Rowden then said maintaining this current level of spending for social services is not an option given the revenue shortfalls officials expect. Ten billion dollars is a massive amount of money, and the figure piqued our interest. We wanted to know if this level of Medicaid spending could be correct. Where does the state gets its money for Medicaid? Before diving deeper into Rowden's claim, it's important to get some background on the Medicaid program. Medicaid is designed to provide health coverage for lower-income families, people with disabilities, senior citizens, pregnant women and newborns, blind and visually impaired, uninsured women, families, kids, and women with breast or cervical cancer. As of November 2016, 69 million people nationwide were covered through Medicaid. Missouri disperses Medicaid to participating residents through itsMO HealthNetprogram under the Department of Social Services. A document by the Missouri Budget Projectexplains how Missouri funds Medicaid. The majority of funding for Medicaid 83 percent comes from the federal government through two programs. One program called the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, matches federal government dollars to state dollars spent on health care services based on a percentage rate. Missouri's FMAP rate for fiscal year 2018 is63.21 percent, according to theHenry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. This means that for every dollar Missouri spends on health care not just Medicaid the federal government gives $1.72. Of the total money Missouri receives from the FMAP program, only a certain amount goes to Medicaid. The rest goes toward other health care services the state provides. Fifty-one percent of Missouri's Medicaid spending is funded through FMAP. The other program Federal Reimbursement Allowance along with other capital reserves, covers another 32 percent of Missouri's spending on Medicaid. Missouri has been participating in this program for 25 years. So this leaves Missouri picking up only 17 percent of its own Medicaid bill. This money comes from collected state revenue. Dan Haug, acting budget director for the state, told us in a phone call that he expects Medicaid to cost the state $10.21 billion in the coming fiscal year. This would make Rowden's statement true, but we wanted to check the budget to see where all the Medicaid money went. Figuring out Medicaid Finding Medicaid spending in the state budget is complicated. The bulk of Medicaid spending falls under the Department of Social Services. In the last fiscal year, the state approved $9.2 billion for the DSS, $7.7 billion of which went toward Medicaid. At first glance, this seems like this is the total budget for Medicaid in the state. There are really no other places in the budget where Medicaid is clearly defined as an expense. So Rowden's claim about the Medicaid budget is false, right? Not so fast. In fact, Medicaid money is spent by more agencies than just the DSS. It is used for other services spread throughout the state budget, most notably in the Department of Mental Health. Traci Gleason, the director of communications and public engagement at the Missouri Budget Project, confirmed that nearly 20 percent, or $2 billion, of the Medicaid budget goes toward mental health services, driving the total budget of Medicaid closer to that $10 billion figure. Where does the rest of Medicaid spending go? Even an expert such as Gleason said that's very tricky to determine. Part of the reason for this is because portions of the Medicaid budget are listed as MO HealthNet, which is the health care system Missouri switched to in 2007. Through the MO HealthNet name, a series of supplemental appropriations sections are added at the bottom of the state budget document. Some of the services funded through supplemental appropriations, such as pharmacies, physicians and premium services, fall under the Medicaid budget. When you add all the supplemental appropriations together for services that fall under Medicaid, it comes out to $10,023,904,918. While this falls short of Haug's estimate, it does make Rowden's statement about the Medicaid budget correct. ""It's really hard to drill down (the Medicaid spending) because it's spread over all sorts of different departments and programs,"" Gleason said. ""Overall, though, Sen. Rowden is correct with his totals."" Nevertheless, because the state is responsible for funding only 17 percent of the total on Medicaid, the total amount Missouri will spend is $1.7 billion from state revenue. Our ruling Rowden was trying to illustrate that Medicaid spending has reached out-of-control levels. According to Greitens' budget recommendations for fiscal year 2018,the budget for Medicaid has gone up over $1 billion in the last three years and now takes up approximately 37 percent of the state budget. Despite the growing concern from Republicans on the cost of Medicaid spending, Greitens has recommended $10.7 billion for the service for fiscal year 2018, an increase of over $500 million from fiscal year 2017. However, it's important to note that ""we"" as in the state of Missouri don't directly fund the entire $10 billion. Because of the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage and the Federal Reimbursement Allowance programs, the state only has to spend approximately $1.7 billion of state revenue on Medicaid. So while Medicaid spending will exceed $10 billion of the nearly $28 billion budget, not all of the money is coming directly from the state. Rowden's statement is accurate but needs clarification. Supervising editor is Mike Jenner." Claim: And this would be the first year, if everything holds true, we will spend over $10 billion of our state budget on Medicaid out of the $28 billion budget.
Rowden was trying to illustrate that Medicaid spending has reached out-of-control levels. According to Greitens' budget recommendations for fiscal year 2018,the budget for Medicaid has gone up over $1 billion in the last three years and now takes up approximately 37 percent of the state budget. Despite the growing concern from Republicans on the cost of Medicaid spending, Greitens has recommended $10.7 billion for the service for fiscal year 2018, an increase of over $500 million from fiscal year 2017. However, it's important to note that "we" as in the state of Missouri don't directly fund the entire $10 billion. Because of the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage and the Federal Reimbursement Allowance programs, the state only has to spend approximately $1.7 billion of state revenue on Medicaid. So while Medicaid spending will exceed $10 billion of the nearly $28 billion budget, not all of the money is coming directly from the state. Rowden's statement is accurate but needs clarification.