This Article  • References  • 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?

Kevin Fiscella, MD, MPH; Peter Franks, MD
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry Rochester, NY

JAMA. 1996;276(5):371-372.

	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.

—Drs McNagny and Ahluwalia suggest that OTC use of the transdermal nicotine patch might increase its costeffectiveness; any loss in effectiveness would be more than offset by transferring costs to the purchaser of the patch. This is a disingenuous argument. Simply shifting costs does not improve cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, the cost of the patch is most often borne by the user, not a third-party payer, so OTC approval will not result in consumer savings unless the OTC patch is priced lower than the prescription patch.

We agree that there is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of the patch in the absence of physician advice. However, the California Tobacco Survey¹ is the only study that we could identify that compares rates of quitting with the patch in the absence of advice with rates of quitting without the patch. The study by Orleans et al² cited by McNagny and Ahluwalia only . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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