ription to nonprescription status, thus reducing consumers' access to drugs that would otherwise have become available OTC, and argue that pharmacists might not be able to provide high quality BTC services. Proponents of a BTC drug class point to potentially reduced costs through a decrease in the number of physician visits and a decline in drug prices that might result from switches of drugs from prescription to nonprescription status. However, opponents argue that out-of-pocket costs for many consumers could rise if third-party payers elect not to cover BTC drugs. All five countries GAO studied have increased nonprescription drug availability since 1995 by altering nonprescription classes or reclassifying some drugs into less restrictive classes. Italy and the Netherlands, which previously allowed nonprescription drugs to be sold only at specialized drug outlets, made some or all of these drugs available for OTC sale. Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States switched certain drugs from more restrictive to less restrictive drug classes, increasing these drugs' availability. However, the impact of restricted nonprescription drug classes on availability is unclear. When we examined the classification of 86 selected drugs in the five countries, we found that the United States required a prescription for more of those drugs than did Australia or the United Kingdom--the study countries using a BTC drug class. However, the United States classified more of the 86 drugs as OTC--the option that provides greatest access to these drugs for consumers--than all four of the other study countries. Pharmacist-, infrastructure-, and cost-related issues would have to be addressed before a BTC drug class could be established in the United States. For example, ensuring that pharmacists provide BTC counseling and that pharmacies have the infrastructure to protect consumer privacy would be important. Issues related to the cost of BTC drugs would also require consideration. For example, the availability of third-party cove