Damaged Care

This is one movie that is in the range of HBO's 'WIT', or 'And the Band Played On.' Showtime has done a very wonderful, and extremely honest play on Linda Peeno, backed by a very good cast she puts on an act that makes you really feel that she is a woman torn by ethics and family and career. Like the other films mentioned this is not only a wonderful play, but a commentary on the state in which we live in as a society. This film make you think that would you do the same, have the same convictions to do what is right. This is a Emmy contender. Too bad it cannot be an Oscar nominated movie. Watch this movie, and bring your friends to see this. Bring Grandma, she would like it too.

"Damaged Care" is an often-poignant, always compelling look at the true story of HMO whistle-blower Dr. Linda Peeno.

Laura Dern's portrayal of a somewhat naive and vulnerable Linda Peeno is outstanding, with excellent supporting work from a solid cast. (One odd bit of miscasting is James LeGros as her husband, Doug. Inches shorter -- and looking ten years younger -- LeGros' character seems no match for Laura Dern's Linda. It might have worked better for LeGros and to switch roles with Adam Arkin, who did a fine, if thankless, turn as a health-claims lawyer.) Michelle Clunie gave a good performance in the interesting minor role of Linda's antagonistic secretary, Gemma, along with Suki Kaiser's underplayed (how could it be otherwise?) Dawn Dubose.

The lovely, haunting musical score and poetic narration cleanly underline and enhance this well-written, well-acted drama. Beyond that, the clear and present dangers of HMO practices that "Damaged Care" warns about are all too real. That alone would make this a must-see movie of 2002, though it offers much more.

Look for this one in the Emmy nominations.

I didn't even know Laura Dern existed until 6 month ago when I saw "Wild At Heart". Maybe I did see her in Jurrassic Park, but she didn't leave a mark on me. This time she did!! Wow!! what a great, super actress!! I found that after seeing LD in several movies, she is great in factual stories, like October Sky. Whatever she does, she makes a believer out of me!! Here, she is a top grade doctor who blows the whistle on the HMO doctors. Well, I always thought there was something wrong with this system, anyway. There is something wrong with the new American people, that whenever they can steal a dollar, they'd rather do that than earn it. This is a story about such people. Not about poor people, but about rich people who want to get richer and they use the poor peoples money to do it. Thanks, Laura, I love you more today than I did yesterday. By the way, if you ever see this, I only give "10" rarely, but your best movie, a brave movie, was without question, was "Citizen Ruth". I ought to know, I've watched it 10 times or more. Please give my best to Alexander Payne, greatest Director of all time.

In 1980, Linda Peeno (Laura Dern) is a student doctor who witnesses excessive procedures for the insurance money. In 1987, she joins Humana as a medical reviewer. She and her husband have a blended family. She believes in filtering out the excessive medical work, but she soon discovers that managed care is less about medicine and more about business. She is forced to deny a man a life saving heart transplant. She is congratulated for saving the company half a million dollar which is about the cost of their new sculpture. She would eventually become a whistleblower against the industry.

This is an advocacy movie on Showtime. While it is informative, it is not necessarily dramatic. It is also about timing. By 2002, the subject matter is well considered and HMOs are already the uber-villains. It is interesting to see the business priorities that permeates the environment.

A pivotal point of this movie which raised my ire was when a self-righteous transplant surgeon accused the HMO of committing "murder" by its refusal to bankroll a one-million dollar heart transplant procedure. Suppose the HMO officer had countered by saying: "O.K., we'll put up half the money if your team at the hospital hospital agrees to do the procedure for half price"; hopefully that would have given the doctor pause for thought - I suspect in most cases the outraged retort might have been something like "no way! we're running a hospital not a charity!" The crux of the matter is that the progress of medical science has made it technically possible to treat more and more formerly fatal conditions, but it has not made it affordable in most cases. Is any health care provider morally obligated to treat a patient regardless of cost or patient circumstances - even if it deprives other patients of the care they need? Some years ago, the British National Heath Service was excoriated by the tabloid press for refusing to finance a second bone marrow transplant for a young cancer patient whose first transplant had failed. The NHS management team replied that there was about zero chance of another transplant saving the girl's life and what right did they have to spend another million pounds on just one patient and deprive thousands of other patients the care they needed. Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics based on quantitative maximization of good for society or humanity - sometimes summarized as "The greatest good for the greatest number." All health care professionals should remember this principle; there isn't ever going to be enough cash available to do everything you would wish to do. Medical ethics become comparatively simpler in an emergency situation, e.g. a war zone or terrorism situation - doctors use the triage system, i.e. separate the wounded into three groups: (a) the seriously wounded who can be helped with the resources available (b) those with slight wounds who will survive anyway without treatment (c) those so badly injured they will inevitably die even if treated. Start with group (a), continue with group (b) if resources permit, leave group (c) to die.