TY - JOUR T1 - Reply to ‘Questioning the claims from Kaiser’ JF - British Journal of General Practice JO - Br J Gen Pract SP - 422 LP - 422 VL - 54 IS - 503 AU - Richard Feachem AU - Neelam Sekhri Y1 - 2004/06/01 UR - http://bjgp.org/content/54/503/422.abstract N2 - TALBOT-SMITH et al1 claim that our paper, published over 2 years ago in the BMJ,2 has ‘become important in UK government policy making’. It is gratifying for us to learn this and we will return to the reasons why it might be so.We find the refutations relating to different populations, currency conversion, use of National Health Service (NHS) data, and degree of integration to be unconvincing. Many of the difficulties inherent in such analyses, and the data deficiencies, were recognised in our original paper.2 Other issues were responded to in our reply to the BMJ correspondence.3This critique by Talbot-Smith et al adds nothing new to this debate and, disappointingly, provides no alternative analysis leading to more robust conclusions. More worryingly, Talbot-Smith et al introduce new confusions and factual errors. Space does not permit a full treatment of these, but we offer some examples: the Kaiser Permanente benefit package for seniors is confused … ER -