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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The news release includes information about costs. We would have liked a little more context. The release states: "The costs associated with home infusion were also consistently lower than services provided in a health care facility, with savings ranging between $1,928 and $2,974 per course of treatment." We need to know what percentage of savings that is per course of treatment. If the whole course costs $100,000, then saving $1,928 is a pretty small percentage. If the whole course is $10,000, than a savings of $1,928 looks more substantial. We found the news release skimmed over giving crucial numbers and metrics for benefits. Separate from the cost benefit to home infusion versus hospital or clinic infusion, the release should have given us some numbers for safety. Here is what the release stated (emphasis ours): "The research showed that patients receiving intravenous therapy at home had as good or better clinical outcomes as those patients who received the same therapy in a traditional health care setting. In addition, patients overwhelmingly preferred receiving their infusion therapies at home, reporting fewer disruptions in personal schedules and responsibilities. We need numbers to demonstrate how "as good" the clinical outcomes were. We need numbers to represent "overwhelmingly preferred." By what percentage did what number of patients demonstrate preference? This is where the release could have taken some quantitative data from the study. The word "harms" does not appear in the news release. During intravenous infusions there are complications that may arise. The release does not mention harm, even to dismiss the probability as rare. The study being reported is a systematic literature review that only considered 13 prior studies. The release does not address the limitations of a literature review or give us the total number of patients represented by the 13 studies. Only 5 of the 13 studies used in the analysis addressed outcomes. One had no comparison group ("However, no adjustment for confounders was performed, and higher OPAT success rates were likely due to purposeful selection of younger, healthier patients for OPAT therapy," according to the published study). In another study, "IPAT patients were selected from a time period during which OPAT was not available for any patients, minimizing selection bias by the matching fact." In any case, less than half of the studies looked at outcome data and those that did involved different diseases from different time periods, some had control groups and some did not. We don't think the evidence is strong enough to suggest outcomes were improved. The bias inherent in CVS employees culling the studies is also concerning. A better description of the review's search and selection process may have helped allay any concerns about studies being cherry-picked. There is no disease mongering. The release is clear that the study was done by the CVS Health Research Institute. Since this is a news release from a profit-making company that operates directly to sell services under study, we hope the readers quickly understand there is an inherent conflict. This is the equivalent of a Coca Cola study about the benefits of drinking their product. The release explains the alternatives of clinic or hospital infusion compared to home infusion. Home infusion services are widely available. Their reimbursement is not widely available. The release says "clinical outcomes and quality of care have not previously been systematically evaluated." The release doesn't rely on any unreasonable or unjustified language. However, we do not think the news release proves the words used in the headline that say "Home Infusion Care Improves Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life While Reducing Overall Costs." Based on a literature review, which does not randomize people into apples-to-apples comparison, you cannot claim to show better outcomes. The release does not offer any quantified benefits to support medical outcomes and doesn't provide quantified information about quality of life improvement. The fact that patients prefer home infusion to travel to a clinic is not by itself a proof that their lives have been improved. As we wrote in the benefits section above we are not given numbers to prove by what amount patients prefer home infusion. Claim: CVS Health Research Institute Study Shows that Home Infusion Care Improves Patient Outcomes and Quality of Life While Reducing Overall Costs

Output: This news release describes the cost savings and safety of home infusion services from 13 previously published studies compared with infusion services at a clinic or hospital. Home infusion appears safe and clinically effective while saving money in the studies reviewed, but the release does not address limits in the review. We aren't given any numbers to back up the claims that clinical outcomes were equal and that patients preferred the home setting. The release notes that CVS has a home infusion businessCoramso at least they make this transparent. We applaud CVS for attempting to quantify the cost savings and other potential benefits of the service and the claim that there are advantages are likely valid but some context/background from other, independent studies would be helpful. Besides the lack of quantification, the release doesn't delve into the potential risks from using the home infusion service. Treatments for chronic diseases, which often require drugs administered through infusion, are one of the fastest growing costs in the US health care system. If patients can be served at home, rather than in outpatient clinics or hospitals, it saves both money and time. But outcomes studies, which compare outcomes and safety between locations, are essential to judging whether home infusion is equal to clinic or hospital infusion. This release does not go far enough with numbers to quantify benefits and risks. We also see that CVS has a conflict of interest, because they have a business arm, Coram, that sells home infusion services. It appears this release (and study) are getting attention just as Congress is "discussing how to implement a comprehensive home infusion benefit for Medicare beneficiaries."

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "During a recent appearance on The Daily Show, guest host John Oliver and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., engaged in a lively exchange on health insurance. One of the issues they discussed was the high cost of health insurance. Paul, an eye surgeon, is strongly opposed to President Barack Obama's health care law. During the interview, Oliver pressed him on how to get more Americans signed up for insurance. Paul told Oliver that according to the most recent statistics, ""85 percent of people had insurance, so 15 percent didn't. So what you need to do is look at who are the 15 percent, and why don't they have insurance? Of the 15 percent who didn't have insurance, half of them made more than $50,000 a year. Why didn't they buy insurance? Because of the expense. They were young healthy people."" In this fact-check, we'll check whether the cost of insurance is the biggest barrier to uninsured Americans. In a separate report, we'll look at his claim that half of the uninsured made more than $50,000 a year. Survey data consistently shows that cost is the biggest barrier to uninsured Americans obtaining coverage. When the Kaiser Family Foundation's June 2013 health tracking poll asked uninsured respondents for the main reason they didn't have health insurance, a plurality of 40 percent cited cost. The second-biggest factor, at 26 percent, was related to employment, such as being unemployed or having a job that doesn't offer health insurance. These two reasons aren't mutually exclusive -- someone could have told the pollster that their lack of a job was the biggest reason but also find cost to be a barrier to obtaining insurance. The only answer in the poll that suggests the respondent doesn't face a cost obstacle is ""doesn't need insurance,"" which was the answer of only 11 percent. In another survey, the 2011 National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers asked, ""Which of these are reasons you stopped being covered or don't have health insurance?'' Respondents were allowed to choose more than one reason. In this survey, too, a plurality -- 42 percent -- cited cost. Three other reasons cited are compatible with cost being an obstacle -- a lost job or a change in employment (26 percent), an employer that didn't offer insurance (11 percent) and ineligible due to age or leaving school (9 percent). Just 6 percent cited ""other,"" which included ""didn't want or need coverage,"" among other answers. ""The cost of insurance is a major reason why people are uninsured -- Sen. Paul is right about that,"" said Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. ""People without access to employer-sponsored coverage have a hard time affording it on their own, and that accounts for most of the uninsured."" Our ruling Paul asked, ""Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense."" Survey data supports him. A plurality of respondents in major surveys of the uninsured specifically cite cost as a barrier, and relatively few indicate that going uninsured is a voluntary choice." Claim: Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense.

Output: "Paul asked, ""Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense."" Survey data supports him. A plurality of respondents in major surveys of the uninsured specifically cite cost as a barrier, and relatively few indicate that going uninsured is a voluntary choice."

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Earlier this week, officials at the National Health Service (NHS) in England recommended that hospitals cancel all non-urgent appointments and operations until next month. May, during a visit to a hospital outside London, said she recognized it is frustrating for patients who had their operations postponed. "I know it is difficult, I know it is frustrating, I know it is disappointing for people and I apologize," she told Sky News. A flu outbreak, colder weather and high levels of respiratory illnesses have put hospitals in England under strain with many operating at or near full capacity. The issue is potentially damaging for May, already weakened after losing a parliamentary majority in last year's election and struggling to pacify her deeply divided party as she navigates the final year of Brexit negotiations. The NHS, which delivers free care for all and accounts for a third of government spending on public services, is typically one of the most important issues for voters during elections and one which is often regarded as a weakness for May's Conservative party. Opposition parties regularly accuse the government of failing to adequately fund the health service. "Ministers refused to provide the funding top NHS officials said was necessary and now patients are paying the price," said Vince Cable, leader of the Liberal Democrats. Founded in 1948 by the opposition Labour Party, the NHS is a source of huge pride for many Britons who are able to access free care from cradle to grave. But tight budgets, an aging population and increasingly complex medical needs have left many hospitals struggling during the winter in recent years. The pressure continues to grow, according to new data on Thursday. The number of patients stuck in ambulances for at least an hour almost doubled to more 4,700 cases during the Christmas week compared with the week before. Department of Health guidelines say ambulance crews should be able to hand patients over to hospital staff within 15 minutes of arrival at hospital. The average bed occupancy for the Christmas week was 91.7 percent. Doctors say that anything above 85 percent is unsafe. The conditions have led some doctors taking to Twitter to vent their frustrations. One London-based doctor wrote that conditions were so bad that he was practicing "battlefield medicine", while another apologized for the "3rd world conditions" caused by overcrowding. Claim: British PM May apologizes as overwhelmed hospitals cancel non-emergency operations.
Output: Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May apologized on Thursday to tens of thousands of patients whose operations were canceled to free up staff and beds to deal with emergency patients.