Teaching Health Law: Teaching Sicko

Meyer P. N. , “Law Students Go to the Movies,” Connecticut Law Review 24, no. 3 (1992): 893–913, at 895 (noting “how law students were trained to ‘think like lawyers’” and how he, as a professor, “participated in the analytical indoctrination of innumerable law students”); Elkins J. R. , “Popular Culture, Legal Films, and Legal Film Critics,” Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 40, no. 2 (2007): 745–790, at 771–772 (finding use of films in law teaching “attractive” as contrast to “the traditional case-method, and ‘think like a lawyer’ and ‘write like a lawyer’ preoccupations of legal education”).

Meyer P. N. Cusick S. L. , “Using Non-Fiction Films as Visual Texts in the First-Year Criminal Law Course,” Vermont Law Review 28, no. 4 (2004): 895–914, at 895–896 (suggesting that “many students find the constant diet of appellate opinions served up in the first year, the density and impenetrability of many opinions, and the decontextualized natures of these fragments severed from the full text of the opinion, often unsatisfying and unfulfilling”). I have used films in my Public Health Law seminar, including the documentary, Pandemic: Facing AIDS (2003), to illustrate international human rights and the challenges of recognizing a univeral “right” to health, and a short film starring Sandra Oh (of television's Grey's Anatomy fame), Barrier Device (2002), to highlight ethical issues in human subjects research.

Reference to 1970s McDonald's advertising campaign, see, e.g., <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKR1ScQUpcA> (last visited December 18, 2008).

Sicko, directed by Moore Michael , 2007.

The Paper Chase (1973) starred John Houseman as the notoriously curmudgeonly Harvard Law School Professor Charles Kingsfield.

For a similar assessment, see Loder K. , “Sicko”: Heavily Doctored , MTV Movie News, June 29, 2007, available at <http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/storyjhtml> (last visited December 18, 2008).

Assignment: During the Friday, April 25, 2008, make-up class or on your own, please watch the Michael Moore film, Sicko (2007). Then, write a critical response and analysis of the issues raised, problems presented, and arguments made by the film, drawing on your understanding of the U.S. health care system, based on regulations, financing, laws, and policies that we covered in class.

By “critical,” I do not mean that you have to disagree with the film's premise or conclusions. Rather, I want you to be insightful — more insightful, I hope, than someone who has not taken the class would be in reacting to the film. Your opinions, as informed by the class, are welcome. The closer you can tie your analysis to the assigned readings and class discussion, the better. I will be grading based on what we studied and learned, not simply your personal opinions about health care system, or your arm-chair critic's view of the film or the filmmaker.

This take-home portion of your exam is open book. You may use your class notes, outlines, casebook, and handouts in writing your answer. Specific citation is not expected or necessary. You may refer to particular cases, statutory language, or other materials in the casebook or class discussion, if you find such citation helpful. You may not discuss your answers or exchange drafts with classmates or with me.

The page limit for the take-home answer is eight (8) double-spaced pages. You do not have to write eight pages, but I want to give you ample space for your answer. Your answers to the take-home question are due at the time of the final, in-class exam period, Monday, May 13, 2008, at 9

a. m. The in-class exam will be two (2), rather than three (3), hours. The take-home portion of the exam will count one-third (1/3) of the final exam grade.

For the survey course, I used Furrow B. R. , Health Law: Cases, Materials, and Problems, 6th ed. (St. Paul: Thompson West, 2008). The principal text for the seminar was Gostin L. O. , Public Health Law and Ethics: A Reader (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002).

42 U.S.C. § 1395dd; see id. (Furrow), at 609–613 (statutory excerpt).

42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a) – (c).

42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(2).

42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(d)(1).

See, e.g., Hurley v. Eddingfield, 59 N.E. 1058 (Ind. 1901); Childs v. Weis, 440 S.W.2d (Tex. App. 1969) (cited in Furrow , supra note 8, at 603 − 04).

29 U.S.C. § 1181(a).

29 U.S.C. §§ 1163, 1167(3) (defining “qualified beneficiaries” and “qualifying event”).

See Furrow , supra note 8, at 654–660 (discussing various state regulatory responses).

Lubeznik v. HealthChicago, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 777 (Ill. Ct. App. 1994); Sarchett v. Blue Shield of California, 729 P.2d 267 (Cal. 1987).

Public Law No. 93–406, 88 Stat. 829 (1974) (codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 – 1461).

29 U.S.C. § 1132(1)(B).

29 U.S.C. § 1132(1)(B)(2) – (3).

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Fast Facts, Uninsured/Coverage, Slide Show, Health Insurance Coverage in the U.S. in 2007, available at <http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=477> (last visited December 18, 2008) (noting that Medicare covers 14% and medicaid and other government health care programs cover 13%); see Furrow , supra note 8, at 732 (suggesting that “Medicare and Medicaid together insure about a quarter of the American population”).

Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 , Public Law Mo. 108–173, 117 Stat. 2066 (codified in sections of 42 U.S.C. and 26 U.S.C.); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395w-102(d) (2); see Furrow , supra note 8, at 739–743 (describing program).

Bergman P. , “Teaching Evidence the ‘Reel’ Way,” Quinnipiac Law Review 21, no. 4 (2003): 973–992, at 974; see Meyer Cusick , supra note 2, at 974; Pendo E. A. , “Telling Stories About Health Insurance: Using New Films in the Classroom,” Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy 5, no. 2 (2005): 269–285, at 272.

Hall T. S. , “Using Film as a Teaching Tool in a Mental Health Seminar,” Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy 5, no. 2 (2005): 287–300, at 298.

See Bergman , supra note 23, at 975; Elkins , supra note 1, at 781–782; Pendo , supra note 23, at 272.

Id. (Elkins), at 767–768.

See Meyer P. N. , “Convicts, Criminal, Prisoners, and Outlaws: A Course in Popular Storytelling,” Journal of Legal Education 42, no. 1 (1992): 129–137, at 130 (describing typical law school analytical tasks and final examinations, as contrast to teaching films).

See Meyer , supra note 1, at 898 (suggesting that students, “exhausted from reading an overload of appellate cases,” could easily view films in preparation for class).

See Hall , supra note 24, at 298 (listing options for making films available to students).

See Pendo , supra note 23, at 272 (noting that film clips brought “energy and passion to the classroom discussion”).

Id., at 273 (identifying “the biggest challenge is making sure that students critically analyze the scenes rather than simply enjoying [or being outraged by] them”).

See Bergman , supra note 23, at 975 (suggesting that “[d]iversity of classroom activities is itself of value for motivating students”).

See Elkins , supra note 1, at 776 and 777 (citing Meyer and noting that “this unsettling of students [through the use of film] is done with a purpose … to shatter the formalistic shells in which law school tend to encase students”); see also Hall , supra note 24, at 298 (noting that films allowed students to “overcome fears about being seem as insensitive or biased” and “lead to insight into their preformed impressions of mental illness”).