Dean Ornish injects himself in the health reform debate

September 14, 2009

by Rahul Parikh, MD

It looks like The Huffington Post’s honorary Medical Editor, Dr. Dean Ornish, walked into the same trap that Whole Foods CEO John Mackey did.

Mackey got a lot of flack when he wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on health care reform, one in which he emphasized the need for personal responsibility for our health.

Ornish, in an effort to inject himself into the current debate, blogged, Don’t Tread on Me: Transcending the Left Wing/Right Wing Health Care Debate.

On the surface, the piece is quite reasonable – Ornish discusses his 14-year fight to get Medicare to pay for services that rewarded doctors for helping to prevent disease. But in doing so, he says:

I understand those who think that single-payer health care is the way to go. However, after needing 14 years to get Medicare to do something as obvious as paying for intensive lifestyle changes scientifically proven to reverse heart disease despite the strong personal support of those at the highest levels of government and the leading experts in the scientific community, I share the Republican concern about greatly expanding the power of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. I’m as deeply suspicious of big government as anyone. I’m strongly in favor of universal coverage but not single payer.

Ornish goes onto tell us how he is equally suspicious of insurance companies. Then he proposes OrnishCare:

There is a third alternative. The idea that changing our lifestyle can prevent and even reverse the most common, the most deadly, and most expensive diseases transcends the old left wing/right wing, red state/blue state divisions. These are profoundly human issues that we can all support, bringing together liberals and conservatives, labor and management.

OrnishCare must have reminded the HuffPo audience of MackeyCare, as he received a plethora of comments criticizing him as naive and elitist.

“Foolish academic BS from someone who has never been without access to healthcare,” wrote one reader.

From another: “The problem with your third line of reasoning – reasonablĀ­e as it is – was demonstrated to me today at Church where our wonderful Knights of Columbus put on a glorious gut-busting breakfast including eggs, ham, sausage, bacon, HFCS-loaded syrups, fruit treats, doughnuts, omelets, cheesey-potatoes, French toast, and pancakes, topped off with a celebration chocolate cake for the new pastor. This after a service listing all the folks in the parish being treated for cancer and heart disease”

These same kind of class-war comments led Whole Foods customers to boycott the store because of MackeyCare.

Probably the most insightful comments came from health care and economics writer Merrill Goozner:

I spent much of last year trying to shoehorn the Ornish philosophy into the health care debate. I agree we need to pay for cost-effective prevention options – including the Ornish approach to lifestyle intervention for people seriously at risk of heart disease.

But it’s a tough fit because that’s not going to end disease in America. And as long as people continue to get sick, they will face the problem of an inadequate insurance system and an out-of-control medical system. As one intelligent commentator pointed out, every one of us is eventually going to get sick, face a traumatic injury or an unexplained illness. Every one is going to die, and many will face agonizing end-of-life medical choices – no matter how healthful their lifestyles.

When any of that happens, they deserve a well-functioning and reasonably priced sick care system. The last thing a sick person needs is a lecture on how they ate wrong and failed to get enough exercise in the months and years leading up to the acute event.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. And, like Goozner said, eventually you, me, and Dean Ornish are going to need that well-functioning and reasonably priced sick care system.

Rahul Parikh, a pediatrician in California, is a contributor to the Los Angeles Times and blogs at sWell on Open Salon.

Submit a guest post and be heard.



Related posts:

  1. What does socialism have to do with the health care reform debate?
  2. What doctors can learn from patients in the health care reform debate
  3. Dean Ornish talks primary care
  4. How health care reform can improve public health
  5. Support for the patient centered medical home in the House health reform bill
  6. AMA: A look at the facts on health reform
  7. How the health reform debate needs to be re-framed


KevinMD.com on Facebook


  Follow on Twitter   Subscribe



{ 5 comments }

1 Evinx September 14, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Yes, we need health insurance to cover major illnesses – but at present (thanks to the unintended consequences of a post WWII decision bcs of price controls) we ended up with a prepaid medical care system. We need to go back to a system of insurance for the expensive and unexpected – just like homeowners, auto, etc.

2 Dr. Val September 14, 2009 at 9:30 pm

We need a well functioning sick-care system – but we must keep most people from needing it most of the time to insure solvency. And that requires a national commitment to lifestyle modifications – and a recognition that 80% of chronic diseases are preventable. The NHLBI recommends 5-10% total weight loss/obese individual to achieve major health improvements. That’s not unattainable. We’re not aiming for us all to look like Kate Moss, we’re aiming for weight reduction from 200lbs to 190lbs.

3 jsmith September 15, 2009 at 1:16 am

There is an assumption in current political discourse that personal responsibility and good health habits will make people healthier and thus lower medical expenditures for society. Unfortunately this assumption is not proven and might very well be wrong. Good health habits can lead to longer lives and more money spent on health care over that longer life . See Rappange et al J Pulic Health http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/fdp079v1that longer life.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for healthy lifestyles, but I don’t think they’ll save us much money, if any.

4 Donald Green MD September 15, 2009 at 6:36 am

If it is catastrophic insurance you are looking for then Medicare is the model. Everyone who pays in gets Part A, coverage for hospital and expensive ancillary treatments. All the rest is elective and need not be chosen and can be bought in the private market. Part B is for doctor visits and comes with a sliding scale premium. This still requires further insurance to fill in the gaps. Part C is Medicare HMOs (Medicare Advantage) and is run by private insurers. Unfortunately this is done at 130% on average greater than regular Medicare. Part D is the prescription package, underfunded and therefore in deficit. This too is run solely by private companies and has been a financial disaster for patients with high medication costs. So we do not have to go back to anything. We are already there and the parts that need fixing are the unconscionable cost overruns of the private sector. This wishing to go backwards to some more ideal spot has no foundation. It will not solve the problems we face, namely, millions of uninsured, medical bankruptcy, and thousands of lives lost each year. If you tell me it is not your problem, this is shooting yourself in the foot. A more efficient payment system coupled with improved coordinated care will put more jingle in your pocket, not remove it. It will also lessen government’s involvement in your life. The present system is leaving many of our citizens out in cold and government is left to pick up the pieces. Not only is it wrong, it is unwise.

Dr. Ornish has not given an alternative view of a doctor’s routines. There is no stopping any Medicare patient from having routine care and, if healthy, it will be a one time yearly fee out of their pocket. It would be nice to have it paid for but not a major necessity. If a patient has a diagnosis it is no longer routine and Medicare pays. The latter is usually the case. This age group does not usually escape some ailment. Further an overwhelming number of physicians, close to 70%, now favor some kind of Medicare solution for all. This was from the most recent NEJOM sponsored by the Robertt Wood Johnson foundation.

5 Mike September 15, 2009 at 5:35 pm

People go to the doctor when they are sick. Even if it was free, most wouldn’t go.

I’ll say it again: PRIMARY CARE VISITS ARE CHEAP!!! Its the shots/meds/labs that cost all the money. And guess what: DOCTORS CAN’T CONTROL THOSE COSTS!!!.

When people finally say to LabCorp or Quest “You can only charge such and such”, or when the government says “Pfizer must compete with WalMArt” then you will have affordable health care. Is that socialist? I don’t think so .I think the system we have NOW is very anti-capitalist. Basically, taxpayers support major corporations, so you can’t get more socialized than that. It would just be nice not to get ripped off.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post: What does Tiger Woods have to do with medical futility and end-of-life care?

Next post: Does preventive medicine save money or cost more in the long run?

Site Meter