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: The Wichita Eagle reports that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment says two deaths in the state have already been directly attributed to influenza as of Monday. Pneumonia has been the direct cause of death in another 38 deaths, and the flu or pneumonia has been contributing factors in an additional 132 deaths. In last week's KDHE flu report for Kansas, there were 101 outpatient visits for influenza-like illnesses. The newborn to 4 years old age group had 29 reported cases for the first week of the flu season. Flu shots are generally recommended for anyone age 6 months and older. Flu symptoms include a fever, body aches, chills, tiredness, cough and headache. ___ Information from: The Wichita (Kan.) Eagle, http://www.kansas.com Claim: Kansas records its first flu death of the season.

A: Health officials say Kansas has recorded its first flu deaths of the season.
****
Q: 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

A: 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."
****
Q: Paragraph: The story doesn't discusscosts for this new approach. One web source points to an average cost of $3,400 per eye for conventionalcataract surgery, although the costs can be considerably less under some insurance plans. The story does not make clear if thisprocedure would be similarly priced. The story states the new procedure "restored vision in babies for the first time" but doesn't describe any quantified benefits of this newer method. At the end of the story, we are told the researchers claimed a "100 percent" success rate three months after surgery. However, that's not specific enough: Readers should be informed of how the researchers measured successwhat were the outcomes they measured?especially in such a young patient group where vision testing is tricky. The story doesn't discuss short- or long-term harms that may arise from this new approach. It may be too soon for researchers to determine potential long-range harms from this approach, but saying that would have offered readers some perspective. The story explains that the study included a small number of infant patients (12) with a condition that differs from routine adult cataracts. The story did a good job of letting us know the study had some key limitations, primarily its short duration. As one source said, "this study wasn't long enough. They [cataracts] may come back." Ideally, the story would have specifically told us the length of time (six months), which helps readers better understand the need for more research with a larger pool of patients followed over a longer timeframe. It also should have been made clear if the studywas randomized and included a control group. No, this story did not cross over into disease-mongering. It did a good job of explaining why it's important to treat congenital cataracts. We were pleased to see multiple independent sources interviewed for this story. Seeking out multiple viewpoints can often surface new details about the illness or field of study, and place it in the context of wider research efforts and the typical patient experience. The story does a good job ofdescribing conventional cataract surgery as the main alternative to this new procedure. The story includes several statements by the researchers saying that larger studies are needed as well as a longer follow-up period in patients before the success with this research is confirmed, which should give the average reader and understanding that this approach is not available at this time. A quote from one of the researchers also lets us know they hope to bring this surgery to the public within four to five years. The story says the study is the first to use the body's own stem cells to regrow lenses in the eyes of babies with congenital conditions. This is enough to establish the novelty of the procedure. It also alludes to a possible use of the procedure in older adults, although it is cautious in that suggestion. The story did leave us curious about the technique in general and we would have welcomed a sentence or two about this emerging field of science. Are there similar procedures where the patient's own stem cells repopulate damaged or missing tissue? What inspired the researchers to study? Given the multitude of independent sources, this story doesn't appear to rely on a news release. Claim: First-of-its-kind cataract surgery using stem cells shows promise

A:
This story describes the findings of a study published in Nature that involved a new approach to correcting congenital cataracts in infants using the patient's own stem cells to grow new lenses in the eye, versus the more standard approach of using artificial lenses.he story had a lot going for it compared with some less thorough competing stories (see here and here), especially when discussing important caveats about the study's limitations. However, the piece would have been stronger if it had better quantified the results of the study: How did the researchers measure the success of this approach? We also wanted to see more information about the study design itself: How many patients were studied? And for how long? Finally, the storyquickly turnedto examining whether this approach might be used among older adults who have conventional cataractseven though congenital cataracts are a very different disease process, and the current study applied to infants only. While not a common eye disease, congenital cataracts can be devastating to a child's vision and normal development. The current treatment optionsurgery and insertion of artificial lensesusually restores vision, but it often requires multiple surgeries as the child grows. A newer, less disruptive measure is merited. And because it's temping to ponder if this treatment could potentially be used one day in older adults with cataractswhich affects about 24 million Americans it's important that the media accurately describes the research, and avoids inappropriate speculation or conflating two different disease processes.
****