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 332:1450 May 25, 1995 Number 21 Next

Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article by Sharfstein, J. M. Related Article by Sharfstein, J. M. PubMed Citation

To the Editor: We have become aware of two minor errors in the data we used in our article on contributions from the American Medical Political Action Committee (AMPAC) to members of Congress (Jan. 6, 1994, issue).¹ The first error occurred when we counted a contribution to a Republican named Jones as a contribution to his Democratic opponent, also named Jones. The second was an error in which we counted a small contribution to a representative when no such contribution was made.

In our Table 1, 91.1 percent of House members supporting tobacco-export promotion received AMPAC funds in 1989 and 1990, not 92.4 percent as reported. The mean contribution to these members was $6,067, not $6,018. Among members opposing tobacco-export promotion, 85.4 percent received AMPAC funds in 1989 and 1990, not 85.7 percent. The mean contribution made to these members was $4,850, not $4,833. The P value for the difference between the contributions to supporters of tobacco-export promotion and those to opponents during these two years was 0.006, not 0.007. Finally, from 1989 through 1992 the mean contribution to representatives opposed to tobacco-export promotion was $9,841, not $9,842.

In Table 2, 83.7 percent of representatives supporting the Brady bill received AMPAC funds in 1989 and 1990, not 84.6 percent. The mean contribution to these members was $4,555, not $4,522. The P value for the difference between AMPAC contributions in these two years to supporters of the Brady bill and those to opponents was 0.003, not 0.002. Finally, from 1989 through 1992 the mean contribution to representatives supporting the Brady bill was $9,020, not $9,022.

In Table 3, 84.8 percent of representatives who opposed the gag rule limiting speech by physicians received AMPAC funds in 1989 and 1990, not 85.6 percent. The mean contribution to these members was $4,880, not $4,850. The P value for the difference in AMPAC contributions to supporters and opponents of the gag rule was 0.26, not 0.22. Finally, during 1989–1992 the mean contribution to members opposing the gag rule was $9,610, not $9,611.

In Table 4, from 1989 through 1992 the mean contribution to members of Congress who agreed with the American Medical Association on all three issues was $8,797, not $8,800.

Joshua Sharfstein, A.B.
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA 02115

Steven Sharfstein, M.D.
Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Hospital
Baltimore, MD 21204

References

1. Sharfstein JM, Sharfstein SS. Campaign contributions from the American Medical Political Action Committee to members of Congress -- for or against the public health? N Engl J Med 1994;330:32-37. [Free Full Text]

Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article by Sharfstein, J. M. Related Article by Sharfstein, J. M. PubMed Citation

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Karagas, M. R., Stannard, V. A., Mott, L. A., Slattery, M. J., Spencer, S. K., Weinstock, M. A. (2002). Use of Tanning Devices and Risk of Basal Cell and Squamous Cell Skin Cancers. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 94: 224-226 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Roest, M A B, Keane, F M, Agnew, K, Hawk, J L M, Griffiths, W A D (2001). Multiple squamous skin carcinomas following excess sunbed use. JRSM 94: 636-637 [Full Text]