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: U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Michigan concluded Wednesday it's in the public interest to deny the preliminary injunction sought by William Husel. The Columbus-area Mount Carmel Health System fired the intensive care doctor after concluding he ordered excessive painkillers for dozens of patients who died. Husel has pleaded not guilty in the resulting criminal case. His pending lawsuit against Mount Carmel's parent company, Trinity Health Corporation, and its insurer argues his ability to defend himself is hurt if they won't cover his legal costs in the criminal case as happened in dozens of related civil cases. The judge concluded the public interest supported denying the preliminary injunction "to protect THC's Catholic principles on end of life issues, to comport with public policy that liability insurance does not exist to relieve wrongdoers for intentional criminal conduct, and to fulfill the court's obligation to read the insurance contract by its plain and unambiguous terms." A spokeswoman for Mount Carmel said by email that it and Livonia, Michigan-based Trinity Health, are pleased with the decision and focusing on patient care. Husel's lawyer in the matter called the decision disappointing and accused those health care systems of misleading the public. "Mount Carmel and Trinity both know that Dr. Husel's care was entirely appropriate and did not cause harm to any patient, and they should be standing up for their employees and defending them against all baseless allegations," attorney Adam Ford of Ford O'Brien LLP said in an email. In a separate defamation lawsuit against Mount Carmel and Trinity, Husel contends the patients died because of their illnesses, not the drugs he ordered. Claim: Judge won't compel health system to fund doctor's defense.
A federal judge declined for now to compel a Michigan-based health system to advance legal costs for a doctor's defense against murder charges in the deaths of 25 Ohio hospital patients.

Paragraph: In March 2020, as cities around the world announced "shelter-in-place" or "self-quarantine" orders in an effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19, social media users started to circulate an image that supposedly showed a newspaper clipping from 1918 with a similar announcement in the town of Kelowna, British Columbia: The clipping reads: Public Notice. Notice is hearby given that, in order to prevent the spread of Spanish Influenza, all Schools, public and private, Churches, Theaters, Moving Picture Halls, Pool Rooms and other places of amusement, and Lodge meetings, are to be closed until further notice. All public gatherings consisting of 10 or more are prohibited. D. W. Sutherland, Mayor. Kelowna, B.C., 19 October 1918. This is a genuine newspaper clipping that was published in the Kelowna Record in 1918 as this Canadian town, as well as the rest of the world, fought to prevent the spread of the H1N1 virus, commonly and misleadingly called the "Spanish Flu." The clipping was archived by the University of British Columbia and can be viewed here. Kelowna, of course, was not the only city to issue such an order. We searched the archives of Newspapers.com and found several similar announcements in cities across the United States. On Oct. 10, 1918, for instance, Des Moines, Iowa, Mayor Thomas P. Fairweather announced that "in order to prevent the spread of Spanish Influenza and to protect the public health and safety," he was directing "all public places of amusement, including theaters, moving pictures houses, dance halls and public dancing places, pool and billiard halls, skating rinks, outdoor athletic events, all public congregating places subject to unusual congestion, be closed." Thu, Oct 10, 1918 Page 6 The Des Moines Register (Des Moines, Iowa) Newspapers.com Mobile, Alabama, took these closures one step further. In addition to closing restaurants and businesses, Mobile also asked people to refrain from kissing: Tue, Oct 8, 1918 10 Knoxville Sentinel (Knoxville, Tennessee) Newspapers.com In 1918, just like today, individual cities and states made the decision to close schools, businesses, and public gathering places. According to a recent study from the Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology,cities that implemented strict social guidelines during the early days of the 1918 pandemic saw lower transmission rates and reduced total mortalities. Claim: "A newspaper clipping from 1918 documents a ""public notice"" from the city of Kelowna, British Columbia, announcing that schools, movie theaters, and other public places would be closed to prevent the spread of ""Spanish Influenza."" "
During the 1918-19 H1N1 "Spanish" influenza pandemic, which infected a fifth to a third of the world population, and during which 50 million people have died worldwide, including an estimated 675,000 Americans, the United States has adopted a range of nonpharmaceutical (public health) interventions. These measures, which were similar to those currently adopted, included closure of schools and churches, banning of mass gatherings, mandated mask wearing, case isolation, and disinfection/hygiene measures. However, these measures were not implemented at the same time or for the same duration in different cities, nor were they uniformly followed. A recent analysis concluded that in some cities (San Francisco, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Kansas City), where the measures were implemented early, they reduced transmission rates by up to 3050%. Cities that implemented such measures earlier had greater delays in reaching peak mortality, and had lower peak mortality rates and lower total mortality. The duration that these "social distancing" measures were kept in place correlated with a reduced total mortality burden. Although we still have no known effective therapy or vaccine prevention for this coronavirus, and the world is a quite different place than it was 100 years ago, the efficacy of the measures instituted during the 1918-19 pandemic gives us hope that the current measures will also limit the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Paragraph: The populist rhetoric appears to be giving way to a more nuanced strategy focused on making the pharmaceutical market more open and competitive, with the aim of lowering costs for consumers. It's an approach that could avoid a direct confrontation with the powerful pharmaceutical lobby, but it could also underwhelm Americans seeking relief from escalating prescription costs. On Friday, Trump is scheduled to give his first speech on an overarching plan to lower drug prices. Administration officials previewing the speech Thursday touted it as the most comprehensive plan to tackle prescription drug costs that any president has ever proposed, but offered few specifics. Officials said the plan would increase competition, create incentives for drugmakers to lower initial prices and slash federal rules that make it harder for private insurers to negotiate lower prices. The result would be lower pharmacy costs for patients a key Trump campaign promise. The plan will not include giving the federal Medicare program power to directly negotiate prices with drugmakers, they noted. Trump campaigned on the idea, which is vigorously opposed by the pharmaceutical industry. Public outrage over drug costs has been growing for years, because Americans are being squeezed in a number of ways: New medicines for cancer and other life-threatening diseases often launch with prices exceeding $100,000 per year. Drugs for common ailments like diabetes and asthma routinely see price hikes around 10 percent annually. Meanwhile some companies have been buying up once-cheap older drugs and hiking prices by 1,000 percent or more. Since entering the White House, Trump has backed away from reforms directly targeting drugmakers and staffed his administration with appointees who have deep ties to the industry, including his health secretary, Alex Azar, a former top executive at Eli Lilly. Still, administration officials ratcheted up the rhetoric ahead of Trump's speech. Azar promised bold action. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb another Trump appointee with industry connections hinted at a plan to "dismantle" the convoluted system of discounts and rebates between drugmakers and health care middlemen. On Thursday, administration officials also vowed to address foreign governments that rely on U.S. medicines but pay drastically lower prices due to government controls. The U.S. accounts for 70 percent of the world's brand-name drug profits, according to a White House report released earlier this year. Here are some of the drivers of U.S. prescription drug prices, proposals for reducing the costs and what's at stake: LACK OF REGULATION Drugmakers generally can charge as much as the market will bear because the U.S. government doesn't regulate medicine prices, unlike most other countries. Medicare is the largest purchaser of prescription drugs in the nation, covering 60 million seniors and Americans with disabilities, but it is barred by law from directly negotiating lower prices with drugmakers. Democrats have long favored giving Medicare that power, but Republicans traditionally oppose the idea. The powerful pharmaceutical lobby has repeatedly fended off proposals that could lower prices, such as Medicare negotiations or importing drugs from countries that regulate pricing. With no direct government price regulation, the primary check on prices comes from buyers in bulk such as insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers, which handle prescription coverage for insurers, employers and other big clients. But because there are so many players in the fragmented system, the discounts achieved in the U.S. are generally far more modest than those in other countries. The result is that the U.S. spends more on medicines than any other nation. In 2015, the U.S. spent $1,162 per person on pharmaceuticals, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That compares with $756 for Canada and $497 for the United Kingdom, both of which have government measures to control drug prices. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY The U.S. system for pricing drugs is notoriously complex, so much that the "real" price for most medicines isn't clear. Critics contend that this lack of transparency limits competition and drives prices higher. Pharmaceutical companies often launch their drugs with high initial prices. But they argue list prices are merely a starting point for negotiations because they give substantial rebates and discounts to pharmacy benefit managers. Those price concessions are almost never disclosed and it's unclear what portion actually flows back to consumers. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and others say the lack of transparency in the current system creates perverse incentives in which drugmakers and other health care companies benefit from rising prices at the expense of patients. Trump officials have suggested requiring Medicare pharmacy benefit managers to share rebate payments with patients. Another proposal would do away with rebates altogether to encourage more upfront discounts in Medicare. But the benefit managers and insurers say that they use rebates to lower health care premiums overall and that doing away with them would drive up costs. PATENTS AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE TACTICS Patents last longer in the U.S. than most countries, typically giving companies a dozen years of competition-free marketing after a drug launches. Most drugmakers increase their prices annually during this monopoly period, and until recently double-digit price hikes were the norm. Drugmakers also have developed a number of techniques to block competitors from launching lower-cost generic drugs. Companies often tweak drug formulations to extend their patents. In other cases, companies directly pay would-be competitors to stay off the market in so-called "pay-to-delay" deals. Gottlieb has promised a crackdown on some of these techniques used to "game the system." He's highlighted a practice in which drugmakers use tightly controlled distribution systems to prevent rival manufacturers from purchasing their drug. This effectively blocks the development of generic versions because generic drugmakers must test their products against the original medicine before they can win FDA approval. PUBLIC PERCEPTION A majority of Americans say bringing down prescription drug prices should be a "top priority" for Trump and Congress, according to recent polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation. And experts who study drug pricing say it's encouraging that the discussion around the issue has moved from outrage to sophisticated reforms. But some warn there is no guarantee that unraveling the current pricing-setting bureaucracy will lead to lower prices, because it all starts with drugmakers' prices. "Until we get closer to policy solutions that address the ability of drug manufacturers to set whatever price they want and increase prices year after year we may only be scratching the surface of this problem," said Juliette Cubanski, a health care expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Dan Mendelson, a health care consultant, said: "If they don't address the cost that patients see at the pharmacy counter it's not going to be seen as responsive." ___ AP Health Writer Tom Murphy contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press Health & Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: In taking on high drug prices, Trump faces a complex nemesis.
Before taking office, President Donald Trump railed against the pharmaceutical industry and accused it of "getting away with murder."