instruction:
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: 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
answer:
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."

question:
Paragraph: Amid increasing concern over the United States Postal Service's efficiency leading up to the 2020 U.S. elections, a CBS News host's tweet warned voters seeking to take part by mail."USPS says you should give mail in ballots at least 14 days round trip," Tony Dokoupil wrote on July 26 2020. "No guarantees. So if you plan to vote by mail, election day isn't November 3rd. It's October 20th. Or sooner. Don't be one of the *tens of thousands* of people whose vote wasn't counted in 2016.". @USPS says you should give mail in ballots at least 14 days round trip. No guarantees.So if you plan to vote by mail, election day isn't November 3rd.It's October 20th.Or sooner.Don't be one of the *tens of thousands* of people whose vote wasn't counted in 2016. Tony Dokoupil (@tonydokoupil) July 24, 2020The postal service has in fact made that statement to not only Dokoupil but other news organizations and reporters; the advisory appeared in a Washington Post story published on July 15 2020:Local elections offices are hiring temporary workers to process absentee ballots, and some local elections boards are adding options for voters to do curbside drop-offs of their mail ballots on Election Day.The Postal Service is also recommending that voters request their ballots at least 15 days before Election Day and mail their completed ballots at least one week before the due date.The advisory was also mentioned in a story republished on news sites for local Fox TV network affiliates on July 27 2020:"We recommend that jurisdictions immediately communicate and advise voters to request ballots at the earliest point allowable but no later than 15 days prior to election date," USPS told FOX via email. "The Postal Service also recommends that voters contact local election officials for information about deadlines."Dokoupil himself reported on the potential problem for mail-in ballots in a story for CBS This Morning; CBS created two batches of 100 mock mail-in ballots apiece from around several zip codes in Philadelphia and sent them to the same local P.O. box, which served as a stand-in for an actual election office.A week after sending his mock ballots from mailboxes around the city, Dokoupil went to retrieve them at the P.O. box to find that most of them were not inside. Postal staff later retrieved several of them, telling him that "they had them somewhere else."However, Dokoupil did note that official mail-in ballots carry an official logo differentiating them from the regular mail CBS used for its reporting. According to the story:Out of the initial batch mailed a week earlier, 97 out of 100 votes had arrived. Three simulated persons, or 3 percent of voters, were effectively disenfranchised by mail by giving their ballots a week to arrive. In a close election, 3 percent could be pivotal.Four days after mailing the second batch of mock ballots, 21 percent of the votes hadn't arrived.According to Postal Service recommendations, "voters should mail their return ballots at least one week prior to the due date."However, nearly half of all states still allow voters to request ballots less than a week before the election.A USPS spokesperson, Martha Johnson, told us that the agency is asking both voters and election officials to be mindful of how long it takes postal workers to transport, process and deliver ballots as well as "the time that it takes for voters to consider and prepare their ballots, and the time that it takes for a ballot to be transported, processed, and delivered back to the election official." The agency's delivery standards, she said, have not changed. She also reiterated the agency's guidance for requesting mail-in ballots:We recommend that customers who opt to vote through the U.S. Mail must understand their local jurisdiction's requirements for timely submission of absentee ballots, including postmarking requirements. Voters must use First-Class Mail or an expedited level of service to return their completed ballots. In order to allow sufficient time for voters to receive, complete and return ballots via the mail, and to facilitate timely receipt of completed ballots by election officials, we strongly recommend that jurisdictions immediately communicate and advise voters to request ballots at the earliest point allowable but no later than 15 days prior to the election date. The Postal Service recommends that domestic, non-military voters mail their completed ballots back to the election officials at least one week prior to their state's due date. The Postal Service also recommends that voters contact local election officials for information about deadlines.Tammy Patrick, a senior advisor for the advocacy group Democracy Fund, told CBS that her group estimated that between 80 million and 100 million United States voters would receive their ballots via mail in 2020. Prior to joining the non-profit organization, Patrick served on the Commissioner on the Presidential Commission on Election Administration under Barack Obama's presidential administration."States like Ohio, you can request your ballot on Saturday up until noon for Tuesday's election," said Patrick, who has also served as a former federal compliance officer for the elections department in Maricopa County, Arizona. "That is the worst possible thing. You are setting up the voters with false expectations, and you're setting them up to fail."A separate analysis published by NPR in July 2020 found that 65,000 absentee or mail-in ballots cast in primary elections until that point had been rejected because they arrived after the deadline."That's the sort of thing that makes me wary about what's going to happen in November when we get an even larger influx of people who haven't voted, or haven't voted by mail in the past," said Charles Stewart, a political scientist at the at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Obama himself added to the discussion about mail-in voting on July 28 2020, when he tweeted a graphic supplied by another group, Vote Save America, displaying the state-by-state deadlines for requesting a ballot. According to that graphic, the deadline for every state not exclusively voting by mail falls after the fifteen-day advisory issued by the U.S. Postal Service:The USPS told CBS in a statement:We employ a robust and proven process to ensure proper handling of all Election Mail, including ballots. This includes close coordination and partnerships with election officials at the local and state levels. As we anticipate that many voters may choose to use the mail to participate in the upcoming elections due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are conducting and will continue to proactively conduct outreach with state and local election officials and Secretaries of State so that they can make informed decisions and educate the public about what they can expect when using the mail to vote. As part of these outreach efforts, we will discuss our delivery processes and will consult with election officials about how they can design their mailings in a manner that comports with postal regulations, improves mailpiece visibility, and ensures efficient and cost-effective processing and delivery.Dokoupil's story also followed reported concerns over the appointment of Louis DeJoy a businessman and fundraiser for U.S. President Donald Trump to oversee the USPS as Postmaster General in June 2020."On the surface, there's a real worry about cronyism and patronage and whether someone is being put into place to carry out an agenda," American Postal Workers Union president Mark Dimondstein told the Post. "We hope that's not the case."The newspaper also reported:DeJoy told employees to leave mail behind at distribution centers if it delayed letter carriers from their routes, according to internal USPS documents obtained by The Washington Post and verified by the American Postal Workers Union and three people with knowledge of their contents, but who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution."If the plants run late, they will keep the mail for the next day," according to a document titled, "New PMG's [Postmaster General's] expectations and plan." Traditionally, postal workers are trained not to leave letters behind and to make multiple delivery trips to ensure timely distribution of letters and parcels.Trump himself has repeatedly claimedfalsely that voting by mail is inherently suspect and vulnerable to fraud, to the point that Twitter flagged two of his tweets on the issue in May 2020 for containing "potentially misleading information."Update, July 29 2020 9:19 a.m. PST: Updated with comment from the US Postal Service.Comments Claim: The U.S. Postal Service has advised people hoping to vote by mail to request the required envelopes by October 20 2020.
answer:
Did the United States Postal Service Urge Mail-In Voters to Request Envelopes by October 20th?

question:
Paragraph: The law was passed on Tuesday, a parliamentary spokeswoman said, in response to a resurgence in HIV infections in a country that was once hailed as a success in the global fight against AIDS. Those convicted face up 10 years in prison. But rights activists said the law would deter voluntary testing and further stigmatize infection with HIV, which causes AIDS and is primarily transmitted through unprotected intercourse as well as from mother to child during pregnancy. "Evidence from the Ugandan Ministry of Health shows clearly - criminalization of HIV doesn't work," said Asia Russell, Uganda-based director of international policy at Health GAP, an HIV advocacy group. "It drives people away from services, and fuels discrimination and fear." Uganda had managed to cut infection rates from 18.5 percent of the population in 1992 to about 5 percent in 2000, according to United Nations figures. But the Ministry of Health puts the current rate at about 7.3 percent. While HIV sufferers in developed countries can have near-normal life expectancy thanks to anti-retroviral drugs, rather than dying within perhaps a decade, this medication is too expensive for many in Africa. According to the United Nations, in 2011 only 54 percent of eligible Ugandan HIV sufferers were receiving anti-retrovirals. The government argues that the "HIV and AIDS prevention and control bill", first put forward in 2010, is needed to cut infection rates and reinforce other government measures to combat HIV/AIDS. But activists say that, in addition to violating rights to confidentiality, the law will be hard to enforce as it can be very hard to determine which of two HIV-positive people infected the other. They also note that the law does not appear to spell out what constitutes "wilful and intentional" transmission, and whether this would specifically exempt someone who had sex without knowing that they were HIV-positive, or who used a barrier such as a condom. Russell said her group would petition President Yoweri Museveni not to sign the bill into law unless parliament removed the provision criminalizing transmission of HIV. "This HIV bill is yet another step backward in the fight against AIDS in Uganda, said Maria Burnett, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. "It is founded on stigma and discrimination and based on approaches that have been condemned by international health agencies as ineffective." Claim: "Uganda makes ""intentional transmission"" of HIV a crime."
answer:
Uganda has made it a crime to "wilfully and intentionally" transmit the HIV virus and made it legal for medical staff to disclose a patient's HIV status to others without his or her consent.