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: Brattleboro Retreat Board Chair Elizabeth Catlin said the organization is ready to work "with all willing partners" to help it achieve financial stability. The board began considering its options last week when the state of Vermont rejected a $2 million request for additional funding. "In recent years, the Brattleboro Retreat's board and its management team have taken a number of creative, cost-conscious steps to reshape and modernize hospital operations while meeting the rising tide of soaring labor costs," said Catlin's statement. "The Brattleboro Retreat's quality of care, even with these financial pressures, continues to be excellent." The facility serves more than half the people in Vermont who need psychiatric care and provides all of the child and adolescent psychiatric care in the state. It also provides addiction services including inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation, and treatment services for those who get Suboxone, a prescription medication used to treat opioid addictions. If it closes, the letter said that would mean finding services for 2,500 inpatients annually as well as filling new gaps for Suboxone treatment services, residential programs for children and meeting other critical health needs. On Sunday, Vermont Human Services Secretary Michael Smith said he had rejected a request for an additional $2 million in funding from the retreat. That request would be added to a financial package valued at an estimated $16 million for new beds and a recent rate increase valued at an estimated $3.5 million per year. Smith said he rejected the request in part because he believes it would constitute a taxpayer bailout of financial miscalculations by Brattleboro Retreat's management. But Josephson said the state wasn't paying it enough to care for the patients the state wants cared for. On Friday, Josephson sent a letter Friday to Smith and Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, that said the facility cannot continue operating without more support from the state. He said the board had authorized him to begin planning for the sale or closure of the retreat "in the very near future." Claim: Psych hospital's financial woes won't stop services, for now.

A: Officials at Vermont's largest private psychiatric hospital said Monday they are dedicated to providing quality mental health care to patients amid the possibility of the facility shuttering or being forced into a sale.
****
Q: Paragraph: The documentary builds on Harry's work on mental health issues, which included work with brother Prince William and his wife Kate in their Heads Together campaign. Harry says the series will share "global stories of unparalleled human spirit fighting back from the darkest places" and the "opportunity for us to understand ourselves and those around us better." Earlier this year, Apple enlisted Winfrey, together with Jennifer Aniston and Steven Spielberg, to try to overcome the TV and movie streaming service business dominated by Netflix and Amazon. The service, dubbed Apple TV Plus, will feature Apple's original shows and movies. Claim: Prince Harry, Oprah work on mental health program for Apple.

A: Kensington Palace says Britain's Prince Harry will be partnering with Oprah Winfrey to create a documentary series on mental health for Apple's new streaming service.
****
Q: Paragraph: The article does an exemplary job of reporting details of access, insurance coverage, and direct costs. It cites a December 2015 journal article that concludes that PBT for a deadly form of childhood brain cancer is "cost-effective." The article could have used more data and research results about clinical outcomes to support that statement, but that's a minor issue on this front. The only discussion of evidence was this passage, which includes no numbers: "Yock co-authored a study published in December 2015 in the journal Cancer, which compared the cost-effectiveness of proton radiation therapy versus traditional radiation among kids with medulloblastoma. The study, which used models to measure long-term side effects and related costs in treatment, work-force participation and quality of life, found that proton therapy was cost-effective." In pediatric brain cancer, while the numbers are relatively small, there are data to support the claims. Readers would have had a better picture of the controversy by some mention of the relatively sparse research results available about the value of PBT in prostate cancer in adults, for example, a source of heavy marketing by PBT treatment centers. Overall, the article needed more prevalence and outcome data for all forms of pediatric cancer and its therapies. The article notes in some detail the various side effects of PBT and especially of standard forms of radiation and chemotherapy treatments for childhood brain and other cancers. The story focuses on the potential long-term harms, but it would also have been helpful to know more about the short-term risks of these two forms of radiation, as well. We are indirectly told that there's not really much evidence on this therapy and that it is largely anecdotal: "Proton beam therapy is considered a big advance in cancer therapy by some experts. Others, however, hesitate to get caught up in the early hype without more long-term evidence." This isn't a sufficient effort to assess the quality of evidence, so we are rating this Not Satisfactory. The story appropriately comments upon the seriousness of these tumors and the first goal of cure and then the longer-term issue of treatment side effects. The article uses quotes and opinions from a handful of well-placed pediatric oncologists. It could have found one or two sources to comment explicitly on the controversial marketing aspects of proton treatment centers, and perhaps put a bit more balance into the cheerleading aspects of the quotes, but overall, the article offers a calm and reasoned picture of PBT's value. The article does an excellent job of describing how PBT works compared to conventional radiation, and how newer forms of PBT are reducing "scatter" even more. Very well reported here. The story highlights that there are a limited number of centers in the U.S. that offer this and that they are not evenly distributed around the country. Many patients need to make special travel/housing arrangements to complete a six-week course of therapy. The report puts PBT's benefits in good perspective and to its great credit, notes from the outset that the treatment is no "magic wand," but has real potential to avoid one of the big challenges of childhood cancer therapy. No evidence of that. Claim: The Promise (and Limits) of Pediatric Proton Radiation

A:
This magazine feature story falls firmly in the category of what science and medical journalists call an "explainer," a relatively intensely reported effort to put context and common sense around an emerging and sometimes controversial discovery or treatment. In this case, it's proton beam therapy (PBT), a sharply-focused form of radiation therapy whose tissue-sparing benefits are becoming somewhat clearer for pediatric cancer therapy, but whose rapidly expanding and heavily marketed availability still outstrips rigorous clinical evidence for wider use, especially in adult cancers of the prostate and other organs. Although the article offers little quantitative data or clinical trial results, it does a good job (from the headline to the end) of describing the pros and cons, costs and benefits of the treatment. For a parent with a child suffering from a life-threatening cancer, identifying the best new treatment regardless of cost or convenience would be the normal expectation. So that a new treatment, such as proton beam therapy, that sounds so reasonablethe potential for the same or higher level of radiation delivered to the cancer while sparing surrounding normal tissueit would be hard not to want to have this for your child. This also leads to the challenge in that we actually don't know if this theoretical benefit is in fact a real one. Though not stated in this article, it would be very hard to randomly assign children to conventional and proton beam therapies because the latter is available and thought better. So the result is the expansion of a much more expensive treatment with little or no proven advantage, and no study in the wings to help in the future.
****