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  • Related letter  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Tobacco  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • Alert me on articles by topic

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

To the Editor: In his Commentary, Dr Woolf¹ makes a compelling case for improved distribution of health care resources. However, some of his examples may be overstated. For example, Woolf cites estimates that tobacco use accounts for 430 000 US deaths each year compared with only 17 000 deaths that would be averted by full delivery of some cardiovascular treatments such as -blockers and warfarin. The problem with this comparison is that it contrasts the effect of completely eliminating a risk factor from the population with the outcome of a specific intervention. The observed outcome of any intervention includes the effect of treatment failures, adverse effects, and nonadherence. The hypothetical elimination of a risk factor accounts for none of these modifiers. Therefore, comparing the total deaths due to a risk factor against the effect of a specific intervention may lead to erroneous conclusions.

A better comparison would be the effects of smoking . . . [Full Text of this Article]

John Kvasnicka, MD
jkvasnicka@healtheast.org
St Joseph's Hospital
St Paul, Minn

RELATED LETTER

Priorities to Improve Health Outcomes—Reply
Steven H. Woolf
JAMA. 2007;297(21):2346-2347.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLE

Potential Health and Economic Consequences of Misplaced Priorities
Steven H. Woolf
JAMA. 2007;297(5):523-526.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT