Regular readers may recall a blog where I questioned CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta’s qualifications as a potential surgeon general.
I had planned to write a part two to that blog, but as Gupta’s name began to disappear from the press, I decided I would be beating a dead horse. I suspected that either the administration was having second thoughts about the nomination, or that Gupta himself was concerned that his ties to drug-makers might lead to embarrassing questions during confirmation hearings.
Let me be clear: Dr. Gupta has not been charged with any wrong-doing. But as Dr. James Floyd, researcher at consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, told ABC News yesterday: “Several of Gupta's broadcast reports undermine his credibility," whether reporting on autism or screening tests and prevention.
ABC added: “Floyd is among those who said Gupta was too soft on Merck's Vioxx drug before it was removed from the market, explaining, ‘He completely just misinterpreted how the data was reported.
“’He seems a lot of times like a spokesperson for the latest and greatest drugs or technology,’ Floyd said."
Over at the always excellent Schwitzer Health New Blog, Gary Schwitzer, a professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota who specializes in medical reporting , provides links to pieces he has written questioning Schwitzer’s “cheerleading” and his financial involvement with drug companies:
Wedneday, Dr.Val Jones finally broke the news on The HealthCare Blog: “Gupta said to be out of running in Surgeon General Race,” noting that she, Gary Schwitzer, Paul Krugman , Dr. David Gorski and I had expressed concerns about his nomination. (I would add reader Dr. Rick Lippin’s name to the list.)
Yesterday, the announcement became official: “Gupta has withdrawn his name from consideration.” According to CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer “Dr. Gupta’s wife, Rebecca Olson Gupta, is expecting a child, and Dr. Gupta wants to spend more time with his family and continue practicing medicine."
The Washington Post added another piece to the story: “one source close to him said Gupta was very disheartened by Daschle's fate and fearful he was not going to get a prominent role in the health-care reform process. Gupta has built a lucrative media empire that includes appearances on CBS as well as CNN and book deals. Soon after his interest in the job became public, he had expressed concern to friends about the financial impact on his wife and children.”
Appearing on Larry King last night “Gupta played down the financial impact, saying that entering public service means a willingness to accept less money,” The Washington Post reported.
"’That's a sacrifice we were willing to make. . . . That really wasn't a consideration for me,’ he told King.”
we may never know the real reason for this withdrawal, but we are way better off:
“Staging Dr. Gupta”
http://agilog.blogspot.com/
I am neither for or against his withdrawal but this administration would have benefitted having someone with links to media and better reach of their message. He would have been a effective messenger. He has traveeled extensively and he knows about medical tourism and how countries like India are providing excellent care at fraction of cost. Majority of M.Ds and public have their head in the sand thinking we have the best care in the world. If we were to calculate healthcare P/E ratio like stocks, it certainly would be a pretty number.
I’ll have to go re-read Dr. Lippin’s post before I second that nomination…and what exactly does the surgeon general do? Maybe the new surgeon general would expand the role of surgeon general. I’d like to see Berwick in a national role, I heard he is or was under consideration to head CMS and that wasn’t a rumor or pulled out of thin air. Sanjay Gupta never struck me as a person passionate about health care reform, so I was indifferent about that to begin with.
How about Dr. Atul Gawande for surgeon general? His credentials as a medical reformer are very strong, and he comes from the same ethnic background as Gupta (and Bobby Jindal), if you’re doing electoral calculus.
Don’t know if the recent scandal about Harvard and income from big pharm has touched him at all, however. I would like to think not, based on my respect for him and appreciation of his excellent writing, but the extent of involvement at Harvard appears to be very widespread based on early reports.
I agree with Lisa: What does the Surgeon General do? Seems to be nothing more than a cheerleader, or a personal health coach for the public at large. But you would think everyone has gotten the message by now: Don’t smoke, eat healthy, get exercise, get enough sleep, be responsible, don’t drink & drive, be compliant with medical advice, and be a good mother or father for your kids. The Director of the CDC is a MUCH more important position, and actually has real influence. I was sorry to see Julie Gerberding resign her position.
Gupta was wrong choice from day 1
Here is how I closed my own blog piece
“Quite frankly, in short, we need a man or woman of gravitas, moral fiber and substance – not a sexy media star, flitting from one opportunistic subject to another, apparently tied to vested interests- for this venerable office of US Surgeon General”
Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
PS
We are close to 300 signers of our petition
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/drlundbergforSG
Rick Lippin
Jms, and Lisa
What exctly does the surgeon general do???
The Surgeon General’s report on the hazards of smoking launched the anti-smoking campaign in the U.S.–ultimately saving millions of lives–
During the Reagan administration, the president tried to ingore AIDS (a “gay disease”– thus not an American problem.)
The Surgeon General stood up to the president in a very vocal way, and the war against AIDS began–with federal fudning.
It has been so long since we have had “good government” in this country that younger Americans just don’t realize what governnment can do–or how important these appointments are.
Ok, I was a teenager when the surgeon general warned me about sneaking my mother’s cigarettes. I remember AIDS…from the 80’s. So, what’s the SG done for us lately!? Obviously it IS time for an energetic, enthusiastic new surgeon general.
Public Citizen is is a shill for the Trial Bar. Their record on medical matters is simply miserable. Their special interest is for litigation, not public health.
Christopher–
On this point you are wrong.
My editor at Barron’s (Alan Abelson) sent me to Public Citzen, and Sindey Wolfe (Public Citizen’s director) as a very good source on healthcare.
Peole on Wall Street understood that Public Ciizen did very good unbiased resarch.
On malpractice, they have done very good work.
Public Citizen is not a shill for anyone; I’m afraid that this is part of the misinformation that conservative thnk tanks have spread.
Trust me, after covering Wall Street for years, I know which sources smart investors (like Warren Buffet, Jean-Marie Eveillard and Jim Chanos (who uncovered the Enron scandla) ) trust and which sources they don’t trust.
Excellent topic write now.The failure of the Clinton plan is all tangled up with the unique personalities and circumstances of the time.