AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


AJPH First Look, published online ahead of print Feb 28, 2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
AJPH.2007.132654v1
98/4/583    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Franks, P.
Right arrow Articles by Leigh, J. P.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Franks, P.
Right arrow Articles by Leigh, J. P.
April 2008, Vol 98, No. 4 | American Journal of Public Health 583-584
© 2008 American Public Health Association
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.132654


LETTER

FRANKS ET AL. RESPOND

Peter Franks, MD, Anthony F. Jerant, MD and J. Paul Leigh, PhD

Peter Franks and J. Paul Leigh are with the Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, Davis, Calif. Anthony F. Jerant is with the Department of Family and Community Medicine.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Peter Franks, MD, Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, 4860 Y Street, Suite 2300, Sacramento, CA 95817 (e-mail: pfranks@ucdavis.edu).

Because this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

Farrelly and Engelen appear to have repeated our analyses, but have included 2 more recent years of data and used Nielsen retail price data as well as the tax burden data that we used. There are some noteworthy inconsistencies. First, despite using more years of data, their sample size was over 1 million persons smaller than ours. Second, they noted that a meta-analysis found an elasticity of –0.4, which is what we found in the earlier time period. However, the elasticity they reported throughout was much lower (range: –0.1 to –0.13). This lower elasticity is actually less than the elasticity . . . [Full Text]







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Public Health Association