Resource – Page 990

Five Careers and Eight Airplanes: An Oral History of John Geyman, M.D.

By John J. Frey III, M.D.
Annals of Family Medicine, July 1, 2007

Abstract

Each generation has an obligation to remind succeeding ones about the people, ideas, and events that have gotten us to this point. This essay and an accompanying oral history trace the origins of family medicine through the life of someone who helped found it—John P. Geyman, M.D. He is one of the most published family physicians in the United States. In addition to being a rural family physician, he was one of the first residency directors in family medicine and the first editor of the discipline’s first academic journal. His career weaves four themes together in interesting and creative ways: commitment to the work of clinical practice, a sense of responsibility for strengthening clinical education, a belief that clinical care should be based on science and delivered within a rational system of health care, and a love of flying. His story also exemplifies the generation of general practitioners who started family medicine but who retained both a personal understanding of the complex nature of independent practice and a reliance on community.

Introduction

Occasionally, when I talk with younger colleagues about a person or article or an event that was formative in the academic discipline of family medicine, I can see in their faces that I am talking about something with which they have no personal experience. Each generation has an obligation to remind succeeding ones about the people, ideas, and events that have gotten us to this point. A quote attributed to Roger Shattuck Jr. in the New York Times stated, “Everything has been said. But nobody listens. Therefore, it has to be said all over again — only better. In order to say it better, we have to know how it was said before.”[1] This essay and the accompanying Supplemental Oral History (available online at http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/5/4/368/DC1) are about saying it all over again.

John P. Geyman, M.D., is one of the most published family physicians in the United States, having published more than 160 journal articles and 10 books, five since retiring as chair at the University of Washington Department of Family Medicine. He was graduated from medical school at the University of California, San Francisco, and began practice in Mount Shasta, a rural community in Northern California, after two years of general practice training in Santa Rosa, Calif. John was among the first residency directors in the discipline, beginning at Santa Rosa in 1969, when the first 16 residency programs were approved in family practice, and Santa Rosa, a converted general practice residency, became 1 of those 16.

In 1974 John became the first editor of the first academic journal in family medicine when he and a group of colleagues started The Journal of Family Practice (JFP). Before that time, there were no refereed journals with original research by family physicians. He continued as editor of JFP until 1990, when he became editor of the Journal of the American Board of Family Practice. In 2003 he stepped down as editor of that journal. During his 29 years as a journal editor, he had an influence on the published literature in an academic discipline that may be unequaled in U.S. history. Most active academic family physicians have had at least one rejection letter from John during our careers!

From 1971 to 1972, John spent time at the University of Utah in the Division of Family Practice; after 1972, at the University of California-Davis, he was in charge of developing a network of residency programs in Northern California. In 1976, he became chair of the University of Washington Department of Family Medicine after the founding chair, Ted Phillips, M.D., M.P.H., stepped down. The University of Washington expanded its educational activities through the WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Idaho) program and grew its biomedical research as well, becoming the top-rated family medicine school, as well as one of the top 10 National Institutes of Health–funded medical schools. John left the chair at UW in 1990 and for the next seven years returned to rural practice on an island in Puget Sound. He retired from clinical practice when he was 66 years old. He and his wife, Gene, have been married for more than 50 years and have lived part or full time on San Juan Island in the Strait of Juan de Fuca since the late 1980s.

By 2000, John was increasing his involvement with Physicians for a National Health Program, a national organization of physicians working for comprehensive health care in the United States. He served as the president of that organization in 2005 and 2006, and he has published four books on the health system in the United States.[2-5] He was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and is a recipient of the F. Marian Bishop Award of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine.

Four themes emerge from the interviews that comprise John’s online Supplemental Oral History: his commitment to the work of clinical practice, his sense of responsibility for strengthening clinical education, his belief that clinical care should be based on science and delivered within a rational system of health care, and his love of flying. His 46-year career weaves those themes together in interesting and creative ways.

For example, early in his career he saw that his small community needed a more organized way to do acute cardiac care. He flew to San Francisco to train to establish a coronary care unit in his community hospital, then implemented the unit and reported its effects in the medical literature.[6] Later in his career, when he realized the island where he worked needed an effective way of responding to emergency situations, he organized an emergency medical technician (EMT) program, which subsequently saved his own life. Of course, he wrote that up and published it as well.[7]

His story also exemplifies the generation of general practitioners who started family medicine but who retained both a personal understanding of the complex nature of independent practice and a reliance on community. Some who left practice in their late 30s and early 40s to become faculty members were fleeing what was for them a practice that was becoming increasingly impossible to manage. They felt they had to find a different way for general practice. Others, such as John, wanted to be a part of an untested idea they believed would transform medical education to be more relevant to the needs of society.

John never emotionally left the small town, and he used his rural practice experience as a personal benchmark for practice and scholarship that helped him explore general practice and family medicine at a deep and personal level. His family didn’t sell their house in Mount Shasta until 15 years after they had left, and they continued to get the weekly county newspaper for 20 years. Most revealing, perhaps, is that, after a 30-year career in academic leadership, he spent the last seven years of his practicing career again in a small community practice.

John has managed to squeeze, depending on how one counts, at least five careers and eight airplanes into his life so far. His books on flying and his books on family medicine and the health care system in the United States all have some of the same literary style: a personal voice that does not overwhelm the facts and ideas that he is trying to convey. He exercises a diligence in looking for information wherever and from whomever he can find it, and he analyzes and organizes that information in a way he thinks will be helpful to the reader. He also conveys the pleasure he gets both from writing the book and doing the work, be it family doctoring, critiquing the health care system in the United States, or flying a small plane.

In 2001, on his 70
th birthday, John had a myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest while swimming laps and was successfully resuscitated by the EMT group he had helped train. Nine months after surgery and cardiac rehabilitation, he was allowed to fly again, but the Federal Aviation Administration required follow-up tests every six months for three years. During that time of monitoring, he decided to find and purchase an open-cockpit biplane. He did find one and flew it, solo, home to Washington from central Texas. As he says: “Low and slow type flying has always been my goal — good old stick and rudder without too much gadgetry.” He, of course, wrote a book chronicling the story.[8]

I spent two days interviewing John at his home in June 2006 for the oral history. He had been kind enough to pick me up in his single engine “tail dragger” at the mainland airport nearest to his home on the San Juan Island and then flew me back the next day. After he dropped me off, I realized that I had forgotten my passport and some files at his house. I called and explained the situation apologetically. “No problem,” John said, “I’ll be right over.”

So when I heard the small plane circling to land, I suspected that John might have taken my forgetfulness as a chance to fly his biplane, and I was right. We spent another hour talking and then he headed back. He climbed into the cockpit, did his preflight check, started the engine, and taxied off, at the age of 75 years, to experience the wind and the sun over the Puget Sound. I looked out to see him, in his leather flight helmet, ear phones, and aviator glasses, taxiing toward the runway, waving and smiling, focusing on what was next, starting another chapter.

The story of John’s career, thus far (as he would put it) is garnered from a series of oral histories by William Ventres, M.D., in 1989, Fitzhugh Mullan, M.D., M.P.H., in 1996, my own conversations with him, and from the books and articles he has published over a 37-year academic career.

[PNHP note: The supplementary oral history of Dr. Geyman is available here and is highly recommended.]

Conflict of interest: none reported. Received for publication February 24, 2007. Revision received March 30, 2007. Accepted for publication April 9, 2007.

REFERENCES
1. Martin D. Rogert Shattuck, scholar, is dead at 82. NY Times. December 10, 2005:A19.
2. Geyman J. Health Care in America: Can Our Ailing System be Healed? Boston, Mass: Butterworth-Heineman Medical /Elsevier; 2001.
3. Geyman J. Falling Through the Safety Net: Americans Without Health Insurance. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press; 2003.
4. Geyman J. The Corporate Transformation of Health Care: Can the Public Interest Still Be Served? New York, NY: Springer Publishing; 2004.
5. Geyman J. Shredding the Social Contract: The Privatization of Medicare. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press; 2006.
6. Geyman JP. A coronary care unit in a 25-bed rural hospital. Calif Med. 1970;112(1):74–77.
7. Killien SY, Geyman JP, Gossom JB, Gimlett D. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in a rural area: a 16-year experience with lessons learned and national comparisons. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;28(3):294–300.
8. Geyman J. An Open Cockpit Biplane Dream: Honey Bee III. Friday Harbor, WA: Avian Ridge Books; 2005.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: John J. Frey III, MD, Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, 777 S. Mills St, Madison, WI 53715, jfrey@fammed.wisc.edu

http://www.annfammed.org/content/5/4/368.full

Assets, debts and health insurance for middle-income families

Thin Protections: High-Deductible Plans Provide Little Comfort for Asset Poor Middle-Income Families

Health Access
June 22, 2007

Our research shows that many middle-income families, some who are uninsured and earn too much to qualify for subsidized coverage, have few assets and significant debt.

In this paper, we show that forcing families to have a bare-bones, high-deductible health plan is of little comfort to the majority of middle-income families with few to no assets that need to be protected.

Middle income families — earning as much as $70,000 a year — are:

* Struggling to buy and hold onto a home,

* Saving few dollars in the bank and for retirement, and

* Tying up as much as one-third of their income in credit card debt.

An individual mandate would have the opposite of its intended effect — exposing middle-income families to even more financial burden.

…the high deductible plans would only add more stress to the thin financial resources of middle-income families and do little to protect families from significant medical debts of thousands of dollars. An individual mandate for a high-deductible plan would have a perverse result of bringing a middle-income family closer to bankruptcy, not protecting it.

http://www.health-access.org/Assets_Debt07.pdf

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

This paper is an important addition to the dialogue on health care reform. Its primary contribution is that it demonstrates that middle-income families now have too few assets and too much debt to be able to tolerate the additional financial burden of out-of-pocket costs that result from plans with high-deductibles and reduced benefits – plans that are designed to keep premiums affordable.

Plans that would be effective in preventing financial hardship for middle-income families with health care needs would have to charge much higher premiums that still would place an excessive financial burden on those families.

The point is that health care costs are now so high that private insurance plans are no longer capable of protecting the finances of middle-income families. Most reform proponents agree that, under our current system of financing health care, the poor must be subsidized if they are to have affordable access to health care. This study shows that a system of subsidies would also have to be applied to middle-income families as well. It defies logic to suggest that the complex process of providing the majority of Americans with variable tax-funded subsidies to purchase administratively-wasteful, over-priced private health plans is somehow an efficient method of financing care.

Rather than assessing the assets and debts of each individual and each family, it would be much more efficient, more effective, and less expensive to establish a single, universal risk pool and fund it through equitable tax policies. We already have the money. We just need to fix our financing system.

The future is specialists and in-store clinics?

Crossroads/Health Care is a forum on the future of health care posted on the sacbee.com website. Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub is the moderator. Following are submissions from James Knight, M.D., CEO of Consumer Directed Health Care, Inc. in San Diego, and Don McCanne, M.D., Senior Health Policy Fellow of Physicians for a National Health Program.

June 27, 2007

James Knight on economical care

From James Knight, MD

Primary care has been the holy grail of health care for quite some time now. The prevailing notion has been that investing more scarce health care dollars in relatively inexpensive preventive care as opposed to high quality (read: expensive) management of manifest disease would save money over the long run. The belief that robust first dollar coverage that pays for day-to-day care (including preventive care) is cost effective over the long run has now been shown to be a myth. Moreover, robust first dollar coverage has incontrovertibly been shown to drive significant unnecessary health care spending (the Rand Health Insurance Experiment.

From a medical perspective, management of manifest disease by specialists in the field provides the most qualified person for the neediest patients. Doctors and other paraprofessionals are generally paid according to the Common Procedural Terminology (CPT codes, trademark American Medical Association) for the services rendered; same codes same payment. While specialists’ management of manifest disease often does costs more, that’s more a function of their training and thus their ability (and perhaps inclination) to provide more advance services, rather than some inherent excess cost. Of note, for more advanced services, specialist fees are generally only a small portion of the total cost as compared to the hospital and technological fees that represent the lion’s share of the cost of a major medical intervention, for example a coronary artery bypass procedure.

The Rand study clearly shows that folks who are financially responsible for the cost of their day-to-day care make very good decisions (on average get the same health care outcomes http://cdhcinc.com/HIE.htm#HealthOutcomes ) but reduce overall health care spending by as much as 40% or more. As consumer directed health care solutions become more common, putting more consumers in charge of purchasing day-to-day care, innovative solutions such as in-store clinics providing access to more affordable preventive and day-to-day care will ultimately drive down the cost of these services.

I believe the AMA’s distaste for this competition is largely economic. That being said, there is also clearly some potential risk to patients that could arise with lax supervision of these new health care venues. Patients must be protected from the snake-oil salesmen so prevalent in the past before physician quality initiatives such as standardized, broad based medical training, board certification and recertification, continuing education requirements and credentialing and re-credentialing.

As we enter a new world in the way people access and purchase day-to-day health care, everyone can expect change. For some physicians that may mean less importance in the new paradigm than they have historically enjoyed. Routine day-to-day care needn’t be delivered by the most expensive provider any more than everybody with a headache must have an MRI and a full evaluation by a neurologist.

In my humble opinion, the person best suited to make these kinds of decisions is the financially responsible patient working with a properly trained and credentialed health care provider of the patient’s choosing (in my view that also includes properly trained and credentialed paraprofessionals who are appropriately supervised by a responsible professional).

June 28, 2007

Public comment on primary care

From Don McCanne, M.D.

James Knight’s comments on “economical care” are puzzling. A strong primary care infrastructure has been proven repeatedly to provide higher quality care by ensuring better access to more appropriate care, and does so at a lower cost. Yet he cynically dismisses primary care as a “holy grail” and suggests using in-store clinics. In-store clinics provide only single-visit care for very minor problems and can’t possibly manage major acute or chronic problems. He apparently would abandon the benefit of coordinated, integrated care in a primary care medical home.

He then suggests that specialists are the “most qualified” physicians, but also defends their high fees. How does increasing the use of highly specialized services reduce health care spending? In fact, the Dartmouth studies have shown that in many areas of the country we spend too much on highly specialized services and often have worse outcomes as a result.

He repeats his oft-made assertion that the results of the Rand Health Insurance Experiment provide a basis for adopting consumer directed health care (i.e., requiring patients to pay cash for their care). He omits the fact that hypertensive patients in the study had a higher death rate when they were exposed to cost sharing. Death is hardly the same outcome as that of those who didn’t die.

The Rand HIE was a study of a healthy workforce and their healthy families during a few healthy years of their lives. It has intrinsic validity for a similar healthy population, but it has no extrinsic validity for our entire population, throughout life, with our full basket of health problems. About 80 percent of health spending is for the 20 percent of individuals with significant health problems. The RAND HIE does not apply to this 80 percent of spending, and can have very little impact on our overall health care costs. Pretending that wasteful patient spending is why we have high health care costs is totally off target.

We know how to reduce waste while improving the overall quality of our system. We can eliminate a tremendous amount of administrative waste, due to our fragmented system of financing care, by changing to a single, efficient insurance system. We can improve quality and reduce costs by realigning incentives to support our rapidly deteriorating primary care infrastructure. We can realign incentives to encourage appropriate use of high-tech specialized services while discouraging wasteful, detrimental excesses. We can negotiate prices and fees to pay for legitimate costs and fair profits, while eliminating payment for costs that do not benefit patients (such as DTC drug marketing).

This year Medicare identified excesses in spending on imaging. They responded by shifting funds from these excesses to improve reimbursement for primary care. The fragmented private insurance industry is not capable of providing the structural reforms in financing that we need. If we really want to contain costs and improve quality in a system that’s affordable for everyone, then we need to change to a single, equitably-funded risk pool with administrators dedicated to patients rather than to enterprises. An improved Medicare for all of us would accomplish that.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/crossroads/healthcare/

Statement of Dr. Robert McMurtry of Ontario, Canada to Rep. John Conyers, Chair, Judiciary Committee, US House of Representatives, June 20, 2007

Testimony of Dr. Robert McMurtry of Ontario, Canada

Prepared for Rep. John Conyers, Chair, Judiciary Committee,
US House of Representatives

I am a grand-father of four, an orthopedic surgeon, former Dean of Medicine and former Assistant Deputy Minister of Health Canada.

I believe that people in need of care, the ill and the injured should receive care based on need not ability to pay.

I have lived long enough to recall what life was like before Medicare in Canada and what it meant to my family.

My father had rheumatic heart disease as a young man. He became a successful lawyer and father of four. At the age of 53 he was struck down by a severe stroke from which he never recovered. He had no insurance coverage for health care or disability having been denied coverage by private insurers.

A proud man who paid his bills was left with permanent disability and a loss of financial security.
Four years after his stroke hospital insurance came to Ontario, followed by Medicare in 1965 a year after my father’s early death at age 62.

When Medicare came I was a new medical school graduate. I witnessed first hand the transformation of the public, crowded wards into decent spaces. I heard all the claims of impending disaster by established medical practitioners and witnessed very few of the problems that concerned them. Healthcare flourished and became the most popular social program in Canada’s history.

Over the ensuing 40 years I have been privileged to serve in a number of roles in academic medicine, orthopedic practice and government. I continue to practice.

There has never been an occasion in those decades that I or any of my colleagues have had to get permission to deliver care. Decisions to treat or not to treat have always been between us and our patients. My colleagues and I would have it no other way.

Care is delivered based on need not ability to pay.

Recently I have lost my mother and one of my brothers. Another brother and my son were both very ill and are now recovered. Through it all I marveled at the quality state-of-the-art, yet sensitive care they received.

There were no bills to pay.

It is not surprising to me that studies demonstrate that healthcare and health outcomes in Canada compare favourably to those in the U.S.

Like any complex human system, Canada’s Medicare is not without its problems.

Wait times in our system have drawn a lot of attention and frankly some outlandish claims made in the media. Statistics Canada’s latest figures demonstrate that median wait times for Canadians to receive elective surgical care are just 4.3 weeks, for specialty care 4.0 weeks, and for non-emergency diagnostic tests 3.0 weeks While this data is encouraging, we can and are doing better every year [For more information on successful efforts in Canada to reduce wait times, see “Why Wait? Public Solutions to Cure Surgical Waitlists” Canadian Center for Policy Analysis and the BC Health Coalition, www.policyalternatives.ca] Over 85 percent of Canadians support Medicare. The publicly funded single payer system works. It is high quality, efficient and equitable.

R.Y. McMurtry MD, FRCSC, FACS
Orthopedic Consultant
St. Joseph’s Health Care
London Ontario Canada N6A 4L6
robert.mcmurtry@sjhc.london.on.ca

Professor Emeritus
University of Western Ontario School of Medicine

Councilor
Health Council of Canada

Former Dean, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry
University of Western Ontario

Former Assistant Deputy Minister
Population and Public Health Branch
Health Canada

Imaging as a proxy for government cost control

MRI, X-ray firms fight Medicare cuts

By Matthew Perrone
Arizona Daily Star
June 26, 2007

Medical imaging equipment makers are lobbying to overturn Medicare cutbacks after weathering some of the worst sales numbers in recent memory.

The cuts took effect in January and reduce how much doctors are paid for running X-rays, medical resonance imaging and other tests on patients enrolled in the government-run health program for seniors. For example, nationwide reimbursements for MRI scans, one of the most commonly performed procedures, dropped 38 percent on average, with payments varying by county.

The Medicare payment changes, which are expected to save $2.8 billion over five years, sent sales of scanners made by GE, Siemens AG, Toshiba Corp. and others tumbling more than 20 percent last quarter, according to data provided by an industry group.

Medicare officials say they are monitoring whether patients are having trouble getting access to imaging. And they point out that payment reductions don’t affect hospitals, where the majority of imaging services are performed.

Washington’s unresponsiveness may reflect a more troubling trend for these and other medical technology companies: Health-care experts that advise lawmakers are not convinced that more medical technology translates into better health care.

“We have communities with half as many scanners as those in other parts of the country, and their outcomes are just as good, and in some cases better, than communities spending twice as much on imaging,” said Elliot Fisher, a professor at Dartmouth Medical School who consulted for government advisers on the imaging issue.

Research by Fisher and his colleagues found that patients live about the same length of time regardless of their access to imaging.

Imaging industry representatives counter that basing the technology’s value on whether the patient lives or dies isn’t valid.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/189110

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Currently the greatest increase in Medicare spending has been due to the increased use of medical imaging. Some of it is appropriate, and some of it is not. As stewards of our public funds, Medicare officials have an obligation to see that we are receiving appropriate value for our health care spending.

There have been some disturbing developments in medical imaging in recent years. There has been an increase in independent, entrepreneurial imaging centers which are not linked to hospitals. Specialty groups that order many scans frequently purchase their own units, providing physicians with even more incentives to order scans. This increased capacity has been demonstrated to increase the number of imaging procedures performed. Elliot Fisher and his Dartmouth colleagues have demonstrated that this increase in volume has not improved outcomes, yet it has decreased value of our Medicare purchasing. It is this over-utilization that is targeted by the reductions in Medicare rates for imaging services.

The opponents of government insurance programs will likely claim that Medicare’s reduction in payments for imaging services will reduce incentives to develop new innovative technology. No. Medicare continues to adequately fund appropriate imaging services.

The message is that Medicare will pay for beneficial technology, but it will not waste taxpayer funds on expensive technology that fails to provide health care value. It is a message to the technology industry that they should continue to provide us with new technology that provides health care value, but don’t sell us excesses that we don’t need and really can no longer afford. The tech industry will not go away. They will still want their portion of the $2.2 trillion that we are already spending on health care.

This important oversight function is an advantage of having a single government program that can identify deficiencies in our financing of health care, and then put in place policies that correct them. The thousands of private plans with their fragmented proprietary information have very little capability of identifying these problems, much less having a credible basis for putting in place global policies that would increase health care value.

Just think of how much more effective we could be in value purchasing of health care if all of us were covered by our own single payer program of national health insurance. That would be so much better than being controlled by an industry that declares “whether the patient lives or dies isn’t valid.”

How many are uninsured?

Early Release of Selected Estimates Based on Data From the 2006 National Health Interview Survey

CDC
June 2007

In 2006, the percentage uninsured at the time of interview was 14.8% (43.6 million), which was not significantly different from the 2005 estimate of 14.2% (41.1 million).

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/200706_01.pdf

CDC: About 2M More Americans Uninsured

Associated Press
June 26, 2007

The number of adults without health insurance jumped by 2 million from 2005 to 2006, according to a new federal report. Uninsured Americans numbered 43.6 million last year, a 6 percent increase from 2005, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Uninsured.html

US survey lowers uninsured numbers to 43.6 million

Reuters
June 25, 2007

Just under 44 million Americans had no health insurance in 2006, according to a survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released on Monday. Their survey of 100,000 Americans is lower than previous federal estimates of 46 million.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N25234092.htm

Census Bureau Revises 2004 and 2005 Health Insurance Coverage Estimates

U.S. Census Bureau
March 23, 2007

The revised estimates show that, in 2005, 44.8 million people, 15.3 percent of the population, were without health insurance — about 1.8 million fewer than the Census Bureau reported in August 2006 (46.6 million, 15.9 percent).

The Census Bureau discovered the need for a revision during a conversion to a more accurate operating system for the Current Population Survey.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/health_care_insurance/009789.html

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

How many in the United States are uninsured? According to the 2006 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) just released, 43.6 million are uninsured, an increase of 2.5 million from 2005. But the CDC states that the 2.5 million increase was “not statistically different” from 2005. The Associated Press reported this as an increase in the numbers of uninsured, and Reuters reported it as a decline. Even the U.S. Census Bureau has problems with its estimates, having recently revised the 2005 numbers from 46.6 million down to 44.8 million.

This does not stop others from manipulating these numbers further. Conservative groups have suggested that many of the uninsured should be ignored for various reasons, and that the uninsured status is only of concern for less than 10 million individuals. Progressive groups have suggested that these counts understate the severity of the problem in that, over a two year period, more than 80 million individuals are without insurance at some point during that time.

In a few weeks (August) the Census Bureau will release the Current Population Survey for 2006. For purposes of the reform dialogue, those will be the most reliable numbers.

The point is that we cannot let others change the debate by zeroing in on the problems with counting the numbers of uninsured. The real issue that needs to be addressed is that we have a health care financing system that is a disaster for the uninsured and for many of the the insured with health care needs.

We do not need to get into a food fight over the precise numbers of uninsured. There are a lot of them, and many are suffering physically and financially, and some are even dying. And a great many more of those who are victims actually have insurance. Do not let the opponents of reform divert you from this crucial message into a silly numbers game.

Health care film exposes sore issue

Whether for or against reform, industry experts are eager to watch 'Sicko'

By Daniel Lee and John Russell
The Indianapolis Star
June 27, 2007

When controversial filmmaker Michael Moore’s blistering critique of the U.S. health care system hits Indiana theaters Friday, a Hoosier group that supports a government-run health care system will be waiting outside in search of converts.

“For our point of view, the timing is terrific,” said Dr. Christopher Stack, a retired Indianapolis surgeon who co-founded Hoosiers for a Commonsense Health Plan, a group that advocates for government-run health care. “It will get people talking.”

The group couldn’t agree more with Moore’s prescription — a move that would guarantee coverage for every American and presumably put Indianapolis-based WellPoint and other health insurance companies out of business.

Members of Stack’s group — including health care workers who will be encouraged to wear their medical scrubs — plan to be at theaters in Bloomington and maybe Indianapolis handing out literature and chatting up moviegoers.

Stack hopes the movie generates broad public and political support for a government-run health care system. “It’s never been taken seriously by the powers that be,” he said.

Love him or hate him, Michael Moore is focusing debate about health care in the United States.

And the movie’s message is expected to stir emotions, especially in the Indianapolis area — home to the nation’s largest health insurer, WellPoint; pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co.; and thousands of other health-industry workers.

WellPoint and Lilly are not featured prominently, but their industries are portrayed as more focused on profits than patients.

The film features allegations that WellPoint’s Blue Cross of California subsidiary had a systematic practice of illegally canceling some members’ policies after they got sick. The company has denied any wrongdoing.

Lilly is not verbally mentioned in the film; the only reference is a fleeting image of a Lilly corporate building sign during a broad attack on the U.S. drug industry for its support of the Medicare prescription drug law of 2003.

Other insurers featured include Louisville, Ky.-based Humana and Philadelphia-based Cigna.

“Sicko” focuses on a string of health care horror stories from Americans, contrasted by idealized portraits of nationalized health care systems in Canada, France, Great Britain and even Cuba.

Critics slam Moore for his style of filmmaking, which they say is agenda-driven and based on carefully selected facts. America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group that represents WellPoint and others, said neither Moore nor his staff contacted any of the companies mentioned in the movie to get their side of the story.
But even some in health care who may not agree with Moore seem eager to see the film.

“I do look forward to seeing it. That’s what I do for a living,” said Matt Gutwein, chief executive of the Marion County Health and Hospital Corp., which runs Wishard Memorial Hospital. “I do think our system is broken. I think it’s unsustainable in its current course.”

However, Gutwein blames the structure of the U.S. health care system, not the health insurers themselves.

“The vast majority of insurance companies, they play by the rules,” he added. “And they’re not the ones who made those rules.”

WellPoint, in response to the movie, said any reform of the U.S. health care system should be based on consumer choice, not a “one-size-fits-all” system. “Given our millions of members, our trusted Blue and UniCare brands, and our interactions with patients and doctors, WellPoint is in a great position to help make the system work,” spokesman Jim Kappel said.

“Sicko,” however, portrays WellPoint in a different way. The company’s Blue Cross of California unit was accused of canceling some members’ policies after they got sick and ran up high medical bills. The company, which denied any wrongdoing, this year settled a class-action lawsuit stemming from the controversy.

The members had claimed that WellPoint would review members’ insurance applications after they got sick looking for any untruth or undisclosed medical condition to deny their claims.

“Sicko” portrays one woman who said her policy was canceled because she had not disclosed a prior yeast infection.

The drug industry also comes under attack from Moore when he compares prescription drug prices in the U.S. to those elsewhere. Moore discovers that an inhaler that would cost an American with a respiratory disease $120 in the U.S. is available in Cuba for about 5 cents, although he does not verify that the medicine is identical or even Food and Drug Administration-approved.

Eli Lilly, long known for supporting free-market health care, takes issue with Moore’s sweeping push for a government- managed health care system.

“These government systems have been given numerous chances to work in other nations, and evidence suggests they are far from ideal,” the company said in a statement. “A single-payer system eliminates competition and hinders quality improvements by slowing the pace of innovation.”

Regina Herzlinger, a professor at the Harvard Business School, said despite its shortcomings, “Sicko” taps into an issue that is ripe for debate.

“It’s disgusting that a country as rich as ours doesn’t have insurance for everybody,” said Herzlinger, also a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a New York think tank.

But she has major disagreements with Moore’s promotion of a government takeover of health care. “I don’t want the government to run it. I want you and me to run it.”

Herzlinger advocates having employers no longer providing workers with health insurance as a benefit. Citizens would be required to buy insurance, with rates depending on a person’s age, sex and location, with no one excluded for a pre-existing condition. Subsidies would be available for the poor.

Local health reform advocate Stack envisions a Medicare-like insurance plan for all Americans.

That debate is likely to rage on long after “Sicko” has had its run.

Good Movie, Now Where's the Movement?

Sicko and the Politics of Health Care

By RALPH NADER
June 26, 2007

He sat there dejected and indignant-twenty years ago-in our office. His position as editor of the monthly muckraking magazine, Mother Jones, had broken up. He was looking for a job that would allow him to bring his conscience to work.

We gave him a place and support to start Moore’s Weekly-a media critique.

Michael Moore has gone a long way since that short-lived publication. He went on to do documentary films, starting with Roger and Me-meaning of course, Michael Moore.

Rich, famous and Hollywood chic, Moore will open his latest film-‘Sicko’ in theatres around the country on June 29, 2007. To many of those who have already seen this indictment and conviction of the corporations that sell health care under an array of tricky conditions, it is his best move yet.

He was in Washington, D.C. last week, for a preview at the large Uptown Theatre and for testimony before a House Committee. The media followed him with a frenzy hitherto reserved for Paris Hilton.

But Michael Moore is no Paris Hilton from any dimension you wish to choose. He is a heavyweight reformer, pitching his film toward full Medicare for everyone. This also means displacing the health insurance industry the way Medicare partially did in the mid-Sixties for the elderly.

“I think one movie can make a difference;.I believe it will be a catalyst for the type of real change people want,” Moore told the New York Times.

Great movies and documentaries raise people’s latent indignation levels-for a short time. Norma Rae, The China Syndrome and The Grapes of Wrath had this effect. But films do not usually move either people or legislators to action. Their effect does not reach enough people. Their urgent 2 hour impact tends to diminish quickly, as compared with the omnipresent and powerful corporate or commercial interests determined to preserve the status quo.

Will ‘Sicko’ be any different? Certainly the giant HMOs, hospital chains and drug companies are firmly entrenched with all the sinews of power that have left this country, alone among western nations, without health care for all. They have endured easily many mainstream print and television exposÃ©s (see the New York Times, AP, 60 Minutes and the nightly evening news, for example) year after year.

Authoritative reports documenting over $200 billion a year in computerized billing fraud and abuse or the loss of 18,000 American lives yearly due to the unaffordability of health care (The Institute of Medicine) bounce off this two trillion dollar industry like marshmallows.

Having been a taught community organizer in Michigan, (see the new book, Citizen Moore by Roger Rapaport) Moore has prepared with all this in mind. He allied himself with the great California Nurses Association and their nationwide colleagues to demonstrate in favor of the film, contact legislators and other large unions.

The anticipatory media for the movie have been generous; citing the U.S. government’s move against Moore for what it claims was an unauthorized trip to Cuba. Right wing think tanks, funded by this hyper-profitable, subsidized industry, pour out inane rebuttals and offer quotes against Moore for reporters.

Unlike for other social justice movies, there is even a bill in Congress, H.R. 676 with 74 cosponsoring legislators, led by Cong. John Conyers (Dem. Mich.), to establish full Medicare for all.

That is a number of lawmakers considerably less that those who signed on to a similar bill in 1993.

There are 17 million more Americans uninsured today than in that year, totaling nearly 48 million without coverage in 2006. So you see where that trend is heading.

If Moore is serious about getting “real change,” as he phrases his goal, he will have to make at least two more contributions. First, he will need to make a comprehensive effort to get many of the 6 million or more people, who will see the film, to sign up as they enter or leave the theatres so that they can be given a chance to connect with each other for a cohesive change constituency.

Secondly, some of the millions he will make from this movie should be put into a full time lobbying organization in Washington and back in the Congressional districts to press for enactment of H.R. 676.

With all his super-rich Hollywood contacts and admirers, Moore should be able to multiply this proposed group’s budget several fold. Michael can even call it ‘Moore’s Miracle!’

Good Movie, Now Where’s the Movement?