Count data are routinely assumed to have a Poisson distribution, especially when there are no straightforward diagnostic procedures for checking this assumption. We reanalyse two data sets from crossover trials of treatments for angina pectoris, in which the outcomes are counts of anginal attacks. Standard analyses focus on treatment effects, averaged over subjects; we are also interested in the dispersion of these effects (treatment heterogeneity). We set up a log-Poisson model with random coefficients to estimate the distribution of the treatment effects and show that the analysis is very sensitive to the distributional assumption; the population variance of the treatment effects is confounded with the (variance) function that relates the conditional variance of the outcomes, given the subject's rate of attacks, to the conditional mean. Diagnostic model checks based on resampling from the fitted distribution indicate that the default choice of the Poisson distribution for the analysed data sets is poorly supported. We propose to augment the data sets with observations of the counts, made possibly outside the clinical setting, so that the conditional distribution of the counts could be established.