32 research outputs found

    Limited indications of tax stamp discordance and counterfeiting on cigarette packs purchased in tobacco retailers, 97 counties, USA, 2012

    Get PDF
    Increasing the per-unit cost of tobacco products is one of the strongest interventions for tobacco control. In jurisdictions with higher taxes in the U.S., however, cigarette pack litter studies show a substantial proportion of littered packs lack the appropriate tax stamp. More limited but still present counterfeiting also exists. We sought to examine the role of tobacco retailers as a source for untaxed and counterfeit products. Data collectors pur- chased Newport Green (menthol) or Marlboro Red cigarette packs in a national probability-based sample of tobacco retailers (in 97 counties) from June–October 2012. They made no effort to buy counterfeit or untaxed cigarettes. In this cross-sectional study, we assessed the presence, tax authority, and type (low-tech thermal vs. encrypted) of cigarette pack tax stamps; concordance of tax stamps with where the pack was purchased; and, for Marlboro cigarettes, publicly available visible indicators of counterfeiting. We purchased 2147 packs of which 2033 had tax stamps. Packs missing stamps were in states that do not require them. We found very limited discordance between store location and tax stamp(s) (< 1%). However, a substantial minority of cigarette packs had damaged tax stamps (13%). This occurred entirely with low-tech tax stamps and was not identified with encrypted tax stamps. We found no clear evidence of counterfeit products. Almost all tax stamps matched the location of purchase. Litter studies may be picking up legal tax avoidance instead of illegal tax evasion or, alternatively, purchase of illicit products requires special request by the purchaser

    US public opinion regarding proposed limits on resident physician work hours

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In both Europe and the US, resident physician work hour reduction has been a source of controversy within academic medicine. In 2008, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended a reduction in resident physician work hours. We sought to assess the American public perspective on this issue.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a national survey of 1,200 representative members of the public via random digit telephone dialing in order to describe US public opinion on resident physician work hour regulation, particularly with reference to the IOM recommendations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Respondents estimated that resident physicians currently work 12.9-h shifts (95% CI 12.5 to 13.3 h) and 58.3-h work weeks (95% CI 57.3 to 59.3 h). They believed the maximum shift duration should be 10.9 h (95% CI 10.6 to 11.3 h) and the maximum work week should be 50 h (95% CI 49.4 to 50.8 h), with 1% approving of shifts lasting >24 h (95% CI 0.6% to 2%). A total of 81% (95% CI 79% to 84%) believed reducing resident physician work hours would be very or somewhat effective in reducing medical errors, and 68% (95% CI 65% to 71%) favored the IOM proposal that resident physicians not work more than 16 h over an alternative IOM proposal permitting 30-h shifts with ≥5 h protected sleep time. In all, 81% believed patients should be informed if a treating resident physician had been working for >24 h and 80% (95% CI 78% to 83%) would then want a different doctor.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The American public overwhelmingly favors discontinuation of the 30-h shifts without protected sleep routinely worked by US resident physicians and strongly supports implementation of restrictions on resident physician work hours that are as strict, or stricter, than those proposed by the IOM. Strong support exists to restrict resident physicians' work to 16 or fewer consecutive hours, similar to current limits in New Zealand, the UK and the rest of Europe.</p
    corecore