This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
—Dr Page is correct in pointing out that our abstract was potentially misleading. Our article examined both the crude (or unadjusted) costs of fetal cocaine exposure and those obtained from regression models. In the abstract we included only the unadjusted costs and the most interesting regression results, ie, the differential effects of crack and multiple substance exposure. We regret not clearly stating in the abstract the method by which each of these was calculated; however, as Page notes, we did so in the body of the article.However, Page's objections to our national projections are unfounded because the projections were based on a regression model where the cost of cocaine was statistically significant (model 3, the effects of crack vs other forms of cocaine exposure). His conclusions about the lack of statistical significance of the variable for all cocaine-exposed infants (model 1) deserves comment. Although it did not
Phibbs CS, Bateman DA, Schwartz RM. Controversial Costs of Cocaine-Reply. JAMA. 1992;267(4):507-508. doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480040055018