TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: Posthumous sperm donation is technically feasible and morally acceptable, the specialists said in a review published in the Journal of Medical Ethics on Tuesday. They argue it should be seen like organ and other tissue donations as a way of relieving the suffering of others. While infertility is not life-threatening, said Nathan Hodson of Britain's Leicester University and Joshua Parker of Britain's Wythenshawe Hospital in Manchester, it causes great suffering and could be said to be a form of illness. "If it is morally acceptable that individuals can donate their tissues to relieve the suffering of others in 'life enhancing transplants' for diseases ... we see no reason why this cannot be extended to other forms of suffering like infertility, which may or may not also be considered a disease," they said. Such a move would raise questions about consent and family permissions for posthumous donations, Parker and Hodson said, and there would also be concerns about anonymity of the donor. Britain has a shortage of donor sperm, while demand is high, and increasing, the experts said. They cited government data showing that an estimated 4,000 samples are imported to Britain each year from the United States, and 3,000 from Denmark, as well as more from other European Union countries. Sperm can be collected after death either through electrical stimulation of the prostate gland or with surgery. It can then be frozen and stored until required. Parker and Hodson cited studies showing that sperm harvested from dead men can result in healthy pregnancies and children with normal health and development, even when the sperm is retrieved 48 hours after death. Other medical experts said the analysis raised issues that need to be resolved. "Further discussion is needed to understand whether people who need to use donor sperm would even want to use the sperm of a deceased donor," said Sarah Norcross, director of the Progress Educational Trust. "It is also vital to seek the opinions of donor-conceived people about what they think the impact would be of never being able to meet the donor." Claim: Posthumous sperm donation should be allowed, say UK experts.

SOLUTION: Men in Britain should be allowed to donate sperm after they die to meet growing demand from couples seeking fertility treatment, medical experts say.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: People who became ill attended the private function Nov. 24 at the Puritan Backroom conference center in Manchester, the state Department of Health and Human Services said Friday. One person later died, but it was unclear if the death was related to the norovirus outbreak, the department said. The restaurant is co-owned by U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas and is famous for its chicken tenders. It has been in his family for more than a century and is a frequent stop for presidential candidates of both parties. The nature of the event was not released, but it didn't appear that any current presidential candidates attended. The manager of the Puritan Backroom, Erik Zink, said in a written statement that the restaurant's top priorities are promoting health and excellent food safety and that he was confident it was doing everything possible to maintain those practices. Zink also said the restaurant had reached out to the family of the person who died to express "our condolences" for the death, which he blamed on unidentified causes. After the outbreak, the Manchester Health Department conducted an inspection of the restaurant. Officials determined there was no ongoing norovirus risk to the public. The symptoms of norovirus include diarrhea, vomiting, nausea and stomach pain, health officials said. The state sees 50 to 75 norovirus outbreaks every year. Claim: 18 sickened at popular New Hampshire primary campaign stop.

SOLUTION: A norovirus sickened 18 people after a private function last month at a restaurant co-owned by a Democratic congressman that is popular with presidential candidates campaigning in the New Hampshire primary, state health officials said.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Deals being negotiated between drugmakers and the insurers who buy medicines now sometimes include extra rebates or even full refunds if drugs don't help patients as expected. It's part of an effort driven by insurers and government health programs to align the cost of care with the quality of care, and slow the relentless growth of prescription drug costs. "We're spending less money on drugs that are less effective," said Dr. Michael Sherman, chief medical officer for the not-for-profit insurer Harvard Pilgrim, which has several of these deals and is negotiating more. Sherman says one-fourth of every dollar it spends on patient care goes to prescription drugs. For the patient, it doesn't mean a check in the mail if cancer comes back after a round of treatment. But it does mean patients could get a drug that an insurer might otherwise be unwilling to pay for and that might help them. And insurers, who now can track how patients fare through electronic medical records, will be reducing wasteful spending and making at least a dent in overall health care costs. "It's going to be part of the solution" to soaring drug prices, predicts Roger Longman, CEO of Real Endpoints, an analytics company that assesses the value of medicines for drugmakers, insurers and other clients. Many new drugs now top $100,000 per year or course of treatment, even though their benefits are unclear or only marginally better than cheaper, older drugs. Buyers of those new drugs, usually insurance companies, are hesitant to pay without assurance the drugs will help patients. Not only is that bad for patients, it makes insurers spend even more on complications and hospital stays if the drugs don't work. As a result, insurers often restrict access to expensive new drugs. Sometimes that's achieved by making patients pay more out of their own pockets, or making doctors wade through red tape to get authorization for a patient's medicine. Sometimes patients have to try cheaper drugs first, and only when they fail and the patients' health has deteriorated are they allowed to get the pricey new drug. Pharmaceutical companies have an incentive here, too: These deals may help them sell more of the new drug they've spent hundreds of millions of dollars or more developing. For example, a new generation of injected cholesterol drugs does an impressive job of reducing so-called bad cholesterol. But the drugs, Amgen's Repatha and Sanofi's Praluent, cost $14,000 a year, while cheap generic pills do a good job of lowering cholesterol for most people for $300 a year or less. Predictably, insurers often reject prescriptions for these drugs. So Amgen, trying to boost disappointing sales for a drug expected to be a huge seller, is offering full refunds to insurers if patients have a heart attack or stroke while taking its drug. On Tuesday, Amgen announced its first deal to do so, with Harvard Pilgrim. Sanofi has a contract with insurer Cigna to pay extra rebates if patient cholesterol doesn't fall as much as expected. "It demonstrates the fact that we are standing behind the value the product has, and we're willing to put some money behind it," said James Borneman, Sanofi's head of strategic pricing. Some insurers are now demanding these deals, which are expected to become standard for some drugs: super-expensive medicines for cancer and rare diseases, and others that are used widely enough to cost insurers millions. In addition, the drugs must have a benefit that's easy to measure, such as keeping kids with asthma out of the emergency room or preventing growth of cancerous tumors for a certain period. Cigna has been pursuing more of these types of deals after finding that some of its earlier efforts "met or exceeded expectations in terms of benefit to our customers, patients," said Chris Bradbury, who heads Cigna's prescription benefit program. One of its early deals, with drugmaker Merck for its diabetes pills Januvia and Janumet, dates to 2009, with rebates pegged to how much patients lower blood sugar. "We keep re-signing that agreement, so I think they're pretty satisfied," said Bob McMahon, head of U.S. marketing at Merck, which also has such contracts with insurers and hospital systems covering an asthma medicine and is negotiating contracts for an infection drug. Other companies with such deals for one or more medicines include drugmakers Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Novo Nordisk and Roche's Genentech unit; insurers Aetna and Priority Health, and prescription benefit manager Express Scripts. On their own, these deals are unlikely to reverse the persistent rise in medical spending, experts say. But they improve the chance that the money will at least go to treatments that work best by making sure insurers and drug companies have something at stake along with the patient. "There's a risk on both sides with these contracts," said Dr. Mark Fendrick, director of the University of Michigan's Center for Value-Based Insurance Design. "Both want to make sure they'll get the outcome they want." ___ Follow Linda A. Johnson at https://twitter.com/LindaJ_onPharma . Claim: New deals for drugs: No heart attack or your money back.

SOLUTION:
Warranties and money-back guarantees, long used to entice buyers of products like hand tools and kitchen gadgets, are now being used to sell something more crucial: pricey new-generation drugs for diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and cancer.