Healthcare industry targeted by Michael Moore

At least six of America's largest pharmaceutical companies have issued internal notices to their work forces to prepare them for potential ambushes by filmmaker Michael Moore after he was reported to be planning an 'expose' on the healthcare industry.

The film is expected to focus on healthcare industry business practices, specifically those of the managed-care and pharmaceutical industries, both of which have been mentioned in Moore's recent speeches and interviews, his spokesman said.

Typically sensationalist, the film is to be titled 'Sicko', and is expected to be released in the first half of 2006, sometime between the Sundance and Cannes film festivals.

'We ran a story in our online newspaper saying Moore is embarking on a documentary - and if you see a scruffy guy in a baseball cap, you'll know who it is,' said Stephen Lederer, a spokesman for Pfizer Global Research and Development.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), AstraZeneca and Wyeth have sent out 'Moore alerts', instructing employees that questions posed by the media or filmmakers should be handled by corporate communications, while Merck, Abbott, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis and Teva send periodic messages about dealing with the media, but haven't singled out Moore by name.

M.J. Fingland, senior director of communications for the Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said: 'the industry has made great strides in the last three years, since a new ethics policy was implemented in 2001 restricting the types of gifts given to doctors, for example, setting a $100 ceiling on each. Although pharmaceutical companies can still sponsor meetings, they no longer have free rein to treat doctors to five-star dinners or pick up their hotel tabs. Giveaways, lavish trips are a thing of the past. We've cleaned up the business considerably.'

Rachel Bloom, executive director of corporate communications at AstraZeneca said: 'Moore's past work has been marked by negativity, so we can only assume it won't be a fair and balanced portrayal. His movies resemble docudramas more than documentaries.'

Continuing along the same vein of criticism, Court Rosen, spokesman with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said: 'what our society really needs is a serious debate about overall health care based on facts, not just another one-sided micro-mockumentary'.

However, Moore's spokesman Mark Benoit begged to differ, stating that 'everything he does is well-documented, so I can understand why they would be so worried.'

Rumours are flying that Moore has hired actors to portray pharmaceutical salesmen who offer gifts to doctors who promote their products. There's also word that he's offered physicians $50,000 to install secret cameras in their offices in an effort to document alleged corruption.

He claims to have decided to make a film about healthcare because it's 'a hot-button issue with the average American - the domestic issue of the day. Being screwed by your HMO and ill-served by pharmaceutical companies is the shared American experience. The system, inferior to that of much poorer nations, benefits the few at the expense of the many'.

Nancy Pekarek, vice president of corporate media relations for GSK, said that employees are uneasy about an assault: 'we've been getting voicemail messages. This is their career, and it's no fun to be targeted. The problem is that Moore's film isn't likely to reflect the stringent standards of the industry today.'

Moore previous films have included 'Roger & Me', which targeted General Motors; 'Bowling for Columbine', attacking on the gun lobby; and most recently 'Fahrenheit 9/11', which notoriously slated President Bush. Considering the feverous reactions that his previous films have whipped up and the current climate of increasing levels of violence on the part of animal extremists, one might be forgiven for questioning the sense of making such a film at such a time.