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.

Example input: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Example explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.
Q: Paragraph: The deal provides $81 billion for VA medical care to treat 9.3 million veterans, including the $8.9 billion for private care under a law passed last year expanding the Veterans Choice program. Another $11.3 billion is on tap for private care in 2021. Major veterans groups have cautioned against "cannibalizing" VA programs to pay for Choice, which they worry could lead to privatization of VA. The program gives veterans wider access to private care when they have endured lengthy wait times or the treatment was not what they had expected. The price tag could soar as the expanded program takes hold, putting the VA at risk of future budget shortfalls. Democratic presidential contenders including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have urged reinvestment in the VA over expanded private care options. Former Vice President Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, a mayor of South Bend, Indiana, have said they will roll back or change some of the Trump administration's rules on Choice. "As the increasing need for medical care by wounded, ill and injured veterans and their family caregivers is being forced to fit under tight budget caps, we are concerned necessary resources could be shifted away from the VA healthcare system, which independent research has shown provides higher quality care than the private sector," said Joy Ilem, national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans. "While community care programs are vital to fill and supplement VA in many locations, we believe the value to veterans and the taxpayer of every dollar spent in the VA health care system is greater than if it were spent in the community," she said. House Democrats had pushed for Choice money to be exempt from budget caps, to avoid the risk of cuts to core VA programs as costs grow in the coming years. Ultimately, however, the money was kept under budget caps after the White House resisted. The added money for Choice is part of a 6% increase to the total VA budget for the fiscal year ending next September. It also includes $9.4 billion for mental health care. About 20 veterans die by suicide each day, a rate unchanged during the Trump administration. The spending bill, which still needs Senate approval, also requires the VA to report to Congress within 30 days the reasons for a two-year delay in announcing whether it plans to provide health care coverage for additional Vietnam War veterans exposed to Agent Orange. Former VA secretary David Shulkin in 2017 tried to get additional diseases such as Parkinson's on a VA list of conditions that are tied to Agent Orange, but the White House opposed that recommendation. A National Academies report in 2016 said there was suggestive evidence to link some of the diseases to herbicide exposure. "The VA and the Office of Management and Budget now have 30 days to deliver a plan detailing how they'll get veterans suffering from Agent Orange exposure the coverage they need," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who pushed the provision. Claim: Budget deal advances VA private care program backed by Trump.
A:
President Donald Trump's expansion of a program aimed at steering more veterans to private health care is getting an $8.9 billion boost as part of the massive government spending bill approved by the House, setting up a potential battle over the direction of the Veterans Affairs Department.