For further information contact:Larry Levitt, (650) 854-9400, llevitt@kff.orgCraig Palosky, (202) 347-5270, cpalosky@kff.orgKate Schoen, (650) 854-9400, kschoen@kff.org

Few Have Seen the Movie But Nearly Half of the Public is Familiar With It

“Sicko” Gets Many Talking About Health Care Issues, Reinforcing Views of Some and Encouraging Others (Even Some Conservatives) To Re-Think the Need for Reform

Menlo Park, CA — 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% 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%) 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%) who were aware of “An Inconvenient Truth,” the documentary on climate change featuring former Vice President Al Gore released in May 2006.

Among those familiar with “Sicko,” 45% said they had a discussion with friends, co-workers, or family about the U.S. health system as a result of the movie; 43% said they were more likely to think there is a need to reform the health system; 37% were more likely to think other countries have a better approach to health care; and 27% said they were paying more attention to the positions of presidential candidates on health care. About equal numbers of those aware of the movie thought it accurately represents problems in the U.S. health system (36%) versus overstating them (33%), and positive impressions of “Sicko” outweighed negative ones 48% to 33%.

“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. “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% of self-identified liberals who are familiar with the film had a very positive impression of it, compared to 9% of conservatives.

But its impact is not entirely predictable — while 56% of liberals familiar with the documentary report 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%) also said so, as did 23% of Republicans. And, 37% of conservatives said they had a discussion with friends, co-workers, or family about the health system following the movie, while 18% 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% of the group aware of “Sicko” cited the film; 62% pointed to their personal health care experiences, and 9% 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% and 46%, respectively), which is similar to perceptions of drug companies (52% unfavorable) and a larger share than viewed defense contractors unfavorably (41%). By contrast, hospitals and doctors were viewed largely favorably by the public.

METHODOLOGY

The Kaiser Family Foundation poll about the movie “Sicko” was conducted as a part of the Kaiser Health Tracking Survey: Election 2008 from August 2 to August 8 among a nationally representative telephone sample of 1,500 adults, including 748 adults who reported having seen the movie or heard or read anything about it. The margin of sampling error for the full survey is plus or minus three percentage points, and for results based on respondents familiar with the movie “Sicko”, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points. For results based on subgroups, the margin of sampling error is higher. Full results, including question wording, are available online here.

The Kaiser Family Foundation is a non-profit, private operating foundation dedicated to providing information and analysis on health care issues to policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the general public. The Foundation is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries.

With the 2008 presidential race well underway, some analysts believe that political independents will play a key role in the final vote. In July 2007, The Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University released a Survey of Political Independents exploring the views and priorities of these voters on a variety of issues. This Survey Brief takes an in-depth look at independents’ views on health care, including the saliency of the issue, which party best represents their own views, whether candidates should focus on lowering costs or expanding coverage, and willingness to pay to cover the uninsured.

Looking at self-identified independents as a whole, health care is a moderately salient issue, ranking third among most important problems for the government to address (well behind Iraq and just behind immigration, an issue that was receiving intense news coverage at the time of the poll), and second among issues that are extremely important to independents personally (behind Iraq). Yet because independents are not a uniform group, the brief also looks at how five different subgroups of independents think about health care.

The Survey of Political Independents, the 16th in this partnership series, was conducted by telephone from May 3 to June 3, 2007 among 2,140 randomly selected adults nationwide, including 1,014 self-identified independents.

 Survey Brief (.pdf)

 The Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University Survey of Political Independents

Chartpack: Awareness and Perceptions of the Movie “Sicko”

This chartpack highlights key results from the survey Awareness and Perceptions of the Movie “Sicko”: Selected Findings from the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: Election 2008.

Chartpack (.pdf)

This chartpack contains key data from the Kaiser/Commonwealth/Tufts-New England Medical Center 2006 National Survey of Seniors and Prescription Drugs. Findings of the survey were published in a Health Affairs Web Exclusive on Aug. 21, 2007.

Chartpack (.pdf)

Toplines: Awareness and Perceptions of the Movie “Sicko”

This document contains the detailed toplines from the survey Awareness and Perceptions of the Movie “Sicko”: Selected Findings from the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: Election 2008.

Toplines (.pdf)

For results from the full August 2007 Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: Election 2008, go to: www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/h08_7690.

An August 2007 poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation looks at the potential impact of Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko.” The survey finds that although only 4% of adults say they have watched it, almost half (46%) had seen the movie or heard or read something about it a little over a month after its national release.

Among those familiar with “Sicko,” 45% said they have had a discussion with friends, co-workers, and family about the U.S. health system as a result of the movie; 43% said they were more likely to think there is a need to reform the health system. About equal numbers believe the movie accurately represents problems in the U.S. health system versus overstating them. Still, “Sicko” has not altered what have long been the fundamental factors shaping the public’s views on health care, such as personal health care experiences and proposals from presidential candidates.

The Kaiser Foundation asked this series of questions about “Sicko” as a part of the Kaiser Health Tracking Survey: Election 2008 from August 2 to August 8 among a nationally representative telephone sample of 1,500 adults, including 748 adults who reported having seen the movie or heard or read anything about it.

News Release

Toplines

Chartpack

SCHIP Reauthorization: Key Questions in the Debate – A Description of New Administrative Guidance and the House and Senate Proposals

The U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives have approved legislation to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which covers six million low-income children today. With the release of the Census health coverage numbers, this updated brief answers key questions that explain the ongoing policy debate about this public health coverage program, which builds on Medicaid’s coverage of 28 million poor and low-income children. It includes a side-by-side of the House and Senate legislative provisions and information on the new CMS guidance.

Issue Brief (.pdf)

This report examines what policy lessons can be learned from the deinstitutionalization of people with mental illnesses and applied to potential long-term care reform for the elderly or those with significant disabilities. The study assesses the reforms that took place under deinstitutionalization, their impact and what mistakes were made. It also discusses the take-away lessons for long-term care policy, with a focus on planning, financing, living situations and the role of families, workplace issues, and the political landscape.

Report (.pdf)

A Race to the Top: Illinois’s All Kids Initiative

In the summer of 2006, Illinois launched All Kids, the nation’s first universal coverage program for children. Several states have observed Illinois’ experience and are proceeding with their own coverage initiatives. This case study of Illinois’ All Kids initiative describes the key features of the program, examines state decisions on program design and highlights some early program experiences.

Report (.pdf)

As Congress reauthorizes the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), accurate estimates of the number of children who are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP but remain uninsured are critical for policy and budget development. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that there are between 5 and 6 million children who are uninsured and eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP. CBO’s assessment is in sharp contrast to estimates released recently by the Bush Administration that indicating there were only 1.1 million eligible but uninsured children. This brief describes the methodologies underlying the two sets of estimates that have been at the center of the controversy.

Issue Brief (.pdf)