FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 348:663-664 February 13, 2003 Number 7 Next

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

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear Related Article by Schroeder, S. A. Related Article by Gross, C. P. PubMed Citation

To the Editor: Gross et al. (Oct. 3 issue)¹ provide a timely study of the effects of the November 1998 Master Settlement Agreement with tobacco companies. Unfortunately, their summary of state efforts does not include Arkansas, a state with one of the highest rates of tobacco-related deaths in the nation, minimal previous expenditures on tobacco control, and low per capita income.^2,3 Despite the findings of Gross et al. that these characteristics are associated with decreased funding of tobacco-control efforts, Arkansas allocated all funds from the Master Settlement Agreement to new health programs and prioritized funds according to guidelines of the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Thompson, J. W., Ryan, K. W., Tyson, S., Munir, C. (2004). Arkansas Tobacco Settlement Proceeds Act of 2000: Results from Education and Engagement with Policy Makers and the Public. Health Promot Pract 5: 57S-63S [Abstract]