MASSACHUSETTS NURSE NEWSLETTER :: October 2007

Michael Moore’s “SiCKO” has broad reach, powerful impact

Few have seen the movie, but nearly half of the public is familiar with it

If the potential impact of Michael Moore’s documentary “SiCKO” were dependent solely on those who have actually seen the film, the result might be a passionate but narrow conversation among the 4 percent of adults who said they watched it in a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll.

But, with a big free media bounce reaching beyond the movie reviews to the news and talk shows, the new poll finds that almost half (46 percent) had seen the movie or heard or read something about it a little over a month after its national release. This is not much less than the share of adults (61 percent) who were aware of “An Inconvenient Truth,” the documentary on climate change featuring former Vice President Al Gore released in May 2006.

Julie Pinkham, executive director of the MNA, with Michael Moore, during the New Hampshire premier of his movie. The MNA was active in promoting Moore’s film and had a significant effect on creating the “SiCKO” buzz.

“Our poll shows how the combination of good timing, a controversial director, and lots of free media attention can generate real impact for a film that very few people have actually seen,” said Kaiser President and CEO Drew E. Altman, Ph.D., in an August press release. “‘SiCKO’ is not a commercial juggernaut like ‘Transformers’ or ‘Harry Potter,’ and we’re not likely to find Michael Moore action figures at fast food restaurants any time soon. But we are starting to see how films about social issues that capitalize on free media rather than traditional marketing can become social phenomena too.”

The movie has been much more likely to resonate with those already inclined to support its point of view. For example, 43 percent of self-identified liberals who are familiar with the film had a very positive impression of it, compared to 9 percent of conservatives.

But its impact is not entirely predictable. While 56 percent of liberals familiar with the documentary report said that they are more likely to believe there is a need for reform of the U.S. health care system as a result, a smaller but still substantial share of conservatives aware of “SiCKO” (29 percent) also said so, as did 23 percent of Republicans. And, 37 percent of conservatives said they had a discussion with friends, co-workers, or family about the health system following the movie, while 18 percent said they were paying more attention to what the presidential candidates are saying about health care. Results were similar by party identification.

Still, “SiCKO” has not altered what have long been the fundamental factors shaping the public’s views on health care. When asked what has had the biggest impact on their opinions about the issue of health care recently, just 2 percent of the group aware of “SiCKO” cited the film; 62 percent pointed to their personal health care experiences, and 9 percent said it’s what they’ve heard or read about proposals from presidential candidates.

The film’s main targets—health insurers and HMOs—were viewed unfavorably by about half the public overall (51 percent and 46 percent, respectively), which is similar to perceptions of drug companies (52 percent unfavorable) and a larger share than viewed defense contractors unfavorably (41 percent). By contrast, hospitals and doctors were viewed largely favorably by the public.