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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said the VA needs to provide Congress more information about a recent bulk order for $208,000 worth of hydroxychloroquine. President Donald Trump has heavily promoted the malaria drug, without evidence, as a treatment for COVID-19. Schumer's request comes after a whistleblower complaint filed this past week by former Health and Human Services official Rick Bright alleged that the Trump administration, eager for a quick fix to the onslaught of the coronavirus, wanted to "flood" hot spots in New York and New Jersey with the drug. Major veterans organizations have urged VA to explain under what circumstances VA doctors initiate discussion of hydroxychloroquine with veterans as a treatment option. "There are concerns that they are using this drug when the medical evidence says it doesn't help and could hurt," Schumer said in an interview with The Associated Press. He said given the fact the malaria drug, despite being untested, had been repeatedly pushed publicly by Trump, VA Secretary Robert Wilkie must address whether anyone at the department was pressured by the White House or the administration to use hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Schumer said Wilkie also should answer questions about a recent analysis of VA hospital data that showed there were more deaths among patients given hydroxychloroquine versus standard care, including how much patients knew about the drug's risks before taking it. In a statement Sunday, VA spokeswoman Christina Noel called it "preposterous" for anyone to suggest that VA would make treatment decisions based on anything other than "the best medical interests of patients." "VA only permits use of the drug after ensuring veterans and caretakers are aware of potential risks associated with it, as we do with any other drug or treatment," she said. Wilkie in recent weeks has denied that veterans were used as test subjects for the drug and that it was instead administered at government-run VA hospitals only when medically appropriate, with mutual consent between doctor and patient. Still, Wilkie and the department have repeatedly declined to say how widely the drug was being used for COVID-19, including how many veterans were given the drug, and whether VA doctors were given guidance by VA headquarters on specific scenarios when it should be used. In a weekly call with veterans' groups this past week, Wilkie continued to defend VA's use of hydroxychloroquine. He dismissed the recent analysis of VA hospital data showing no benefits to patients, suggesting the poor outcomes were because the cases involved older, very sick veterans. "Use of this medication for treatment of COVID-19 is considered 'off label' perfectly legal and not rare," he wrote in an April 29 letter to veterans' groups. The analysis of hospital data, done by independent researchers at two universities with VA approval, was not a rigorous experiment. Researchers analyzed medical records of 368 older male veterans hospitalized with confirmed coronavirus infection at VA medical centers who died or were discharged by April 11. About 28% of veterans who were given hydroxychloroquine plus usual care died, versus 11% of those getting routine care alone. The VA recently said most of its recent bulk order for hydroxychloroquine was being used for approved uses, such as treating lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, but it didn't provide breakdowns. Wilkie in recent weeks took advocacy of the drug even further than Trump by claiming without evidence that it has been effective for young and middle-aged veterans in particular. In fact, there is no published evidence showing that. Veterans are "very concerned that we still do not have clarity on the VA's past and present use of hydroxychloroquine in treating veterans with COVID-19," Jeremy Butler, chief executive officer of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, told the AP. "Now that the federal government issued an emergency use authorization for remdesivir to treat COVID-19, we need answers to these questions as well as the VA's plans for administering, or not administering, remdesivir," he said. That action by the Food and Drug Administration came after preliminary results from a government-sponsored study showed that remdesivir shortened the time to recovery by 31%, or about four days on average, for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In a tweet Sunday, former VA Secretary David Shulkin urged the department to immediately curtail use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. "With studies showing no benefit, VA should restrict use exclusively to clinical trials," he wrote. Shulkin was fired by Trump in March 2018, and Wilkie replaced him. Schumer said his main concern is determining whether the VA had conducted any "clandestine studies to determine whether hydroxychloroquine was effective without their permission." He said there's also concern that the department won't address specifically where the drug was sent. "These are people who risked their lives for us," Schumer said. "They should be treated only with the utmost dignity, respect and high standards of care." The drug has long been used to treat malaria and other ailments. A few, very small preliminary studies suggested it might help prevent the coronavirus from entering cells and possibly help patients clear the virus sooner. But the FDA last month warned doctors against prescribing the drug for COVID-19 outside hospitals because of the risks of serious side effects and death. Claim: Schumer calls on VA to explain use of unproven drug on vets.

Answer: The Senate's top Democrat on Sunday called on the Department of Veterans Affairs to explain why it allowed the use of an unproven drug on veterans for the coronavirus, saying patients may have been put at unnecessary risk.

Question: Paragraph: WisCorps has hired someone with a visual impairment and another person with a physical disability to work on erosion control and planting in neighborhood parks, and building accessible gardens this summer, Wisconsin Public Radio (http://bit.ly/2s8XH2P) reported. WisCorps Executive Director Matthew Brantner said the group is being called the Inclusive Crew. "Whether it's a physical barrier or just a barrier to entry into the workforce, we want to be able to remove that and get young people into the workforce and have young people of all abilities come in and conserve our state's natural resources and revitalize our communities," he said. The goal is to expand the concept to all of the program's work crews by next summer, he said. More than 40 percent of people with disabilities in the state are unemployed, according to 2016 statistics. Inclusive Crew program coordinator Andrea Frisch says she hopes to make nature available to everyone. "Scientifically, there are studies that say spending time in nature you have better outcomes for stress management," she said. "Some individuals with different disabilities, for example autism, being outdoors and doing nature activities helps people focus and helps people experience things that they wouldn't typically experience." ___ Information from: Wisconsin Public Radio, http://www.wpr.org Claim: Conservation program hopes to help people of all abilities.

Answer: An environmental conservation program based in western Wisconsin plans to expand its work opportunities and environmental education program to people of all abilities.

Question: Paragraph: "In the wake of mass shootings in Wisconsin and around the country, it may have been alarming to hear Gov. Scott Walker explain why he proposed more spending for mental health care in his 2013-2015 budget. ""Nationally, serious mental illness costs at least $193 billion a year in lost earnings,"" Walker said during his Feb. 20, 2013, budget presentation. ""In Wisconsin, only half of all the adults with serious psychological distress received mental health treatment or medication."" In the course of his remarks, Walker used two different terms -- ""serious mental illness"" and ""serious psychological distress."" He used the second to illustrate lack of care. Is he correct that only half of Wisconsin adults with ""serious psychological distress"" receive care? Backdrop: mass shootings Walker didn't mention mass shootings in his budget address, but he alluded to them two weeks earlier when he revealed his plan to boost mental health spending by $29 million over two years. The National Alliance on Mental Illness Wisconsin praised the spending boost, which would be done from several different pots of money.But the advocacy group said Walker's rejection of a federal proposal to expand Medicaid ""reflects a shallow understanding"" of ""crucial means to affordable mental health care for Wisconsin residents."" In revealing his plans, the governor stopped short of drawing a clear link between treating mental illness and preventing mass shootings, but indicated his plan took on greater urgency after mass killings in 2012. Those incidents included the shooting deaths of six worshippers at a Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee and of 26 children and adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. To be clear, only about 1 percent of people with mental illness considered to be severe are regarded as dangerous. But a 2011 Milwaukee Journal Sentinelreport found that this group can pose a dilemma for policy-makers, who lack the data to develop a sound system for dealing with it. Walker's budget, which could be modified by the Legislature, includes $12.6 million to treat more patients who have been committed to mental hospitals, $10.2 million to expand community-based care programs for people with severe mental illness and $3.8 million for more coordination of care for children with behavioral issues. Walker's evidence When we asked Walker's office for evidence to back his claim, we were initially referred to a January 2013 report by his Department of Health Services. The report estimated, based on a federal survey of American adults, that in 2011, 49 percent of the 1 million adults in Wisconsin who had ""any mental illness"" did not get treatment. Any mental illness refers to people who have a ""diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder."" The disorder causes impairment -- ranging from mild to moderate to substantial -- in carrying out major life activities. The 49 percent figure cited in the health department's report might appear to support Walker's claim. But his claim about Wisconsin didn't use the term mental illness. It used the phrase ""serious psychological distress."" We pointed out the difference to Stephanie Smiley, spokeswoman for the department. She then cited federal survey data showing that over a two-year period -- 2010 to 2011 -- an estimated 51 percent of Wisconsin adults with ""serious psychological distress"" did not get treatment in the previous year. (She also said that in 2008-2009, 31 percent of state adults with serious mental illness got treatment.) So, the 51 percent figure about serious psychological distress appears to back Walker's claim. But let's understand serious psychological distress as compared to serious mental illness, given that mental illness was the focus of Walker's comments and his proposed spending increase. Other evidence Based on definitions pertaining to adults from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which oversees the surveys Walker cited: there are differences between serious mental illness -- the first term Walker used in his budget speech -- and serious psychological distress, which he mentioned second. Serious mental illness refers to a ""diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder"" that involves substantial impairment in carrying out major life activities. Serious psychological distress refers to how a person responds to six questions in a federal survey about whether they feel nervous, hopeless, restless or fidgety, sad or depressed, ""that everything was an effort"" and ""no good or worthless."" Experts we consulted said that serious mental illness was a more precise term used to identify a person after thorough diagnosis and that serious psychological distress was an intentionally vague term used by researchers doing surveys. ""It kind of casts a wider net,"" Annabelle Potvin of the National Alliance on Mental Illness Wisconsin said of the serious psychological distress term, which she said indicates a need for a person to get a mental health assessment. Serious psychological distress can encompass people anywhere on a scale from mild to serious mental illness, but tends to be lower on the scale. That's according to the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Tim Connor, who evaluates mental health programs across the state; and Walter Laux, behavioral health division director of Community Advocates, a Milwaukee-based nonprofit agency. Indeed, the state Department of Health Services, in a 2010 report, also made a distinction. Serious psychological distress is a ""non-specific category of distress"" characterized by a ""mood or anxiety disorder and a lesser degree of functional impairment than serious mental illness."" It is considered to be ""an indicator of possible serious mental illness, with similar but less strict inclusion criteria."" In other words, people with serious psychological distress might have mental illness, but that distress is generally regarded as lower on a scale than serious mental illness. Our rating After making a reference to serious mental illness, Walker said: ""In Wisconsin, only half of all the adults with serious psychological distress received mental health treatment or medication."" Strictly speaking, Walker's statistical claim is accurate, at least based on estimates derived from a federal survey. But his statement needs clarification, given that people with serious psychological distress may have mental illness, but have not been diagnosed as being mentally ill." Claim: In Wisconsin, only half of all the adults with serious psychological distress received mental health treatment or medication.

Answer:
After making a reference to serious mental illness, Walker said: "In Wisconsin, only half of all the adults with serious psychological distress received mental health treatment or medication." Strictly speaking, Walker's statistical claim is accurate, at least based on estimates derived from a federal survey. But his statement needs clarification, given that people with serious psychological distress may have mental illness, but have not been diagnosed as being mentally ill.