This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Tom G. Mayer, MD; Robert J. Gatchel, PhD
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas

JAMA. 1988;259(8):1181-1182.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—Dr Lynn misunderstands the method by which patients were assigned to the groups. More than 90% of each group were workmen's compensation cases (as stated in the article), in which the choice of insurance company was essentially a random process based on the company suggested by the insurance broker used by the employer, not by patient choice. Thus, it was not based on patient economics. Patients were essentially randomized by the "luck of the draw" according to which insurance company their employer happened to have chosen. As stated in the study, there were no differences between those who were authorized vs those who were not authorized for the program in terms of the types of industries they were employed by. We found that no one insurance company had a lock on a single industry, so that no bias can be accorded to this mode of selection. Patients were . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?