Do No Harm submitted this request for comment by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Do No Harm, a national association of medical professionals united in protecting medicine from harmful and divisive political ideologies, shares CMS’ goal to advance “the attainment of the highest level of health for all people…regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, geography, preferred language, or other factors that affect access to care and health outcomes.” We appreciate the opportunity to comment on CMS’ request for information regarding this goal in the context of Medicare Advantage.
However, we are concerned that this request for information is rooted in a growing and deeply troubling political ideology which seeks to disembody the medical profession’s most powerful means to that end: our strong tradition, beginning with the Hippocratic Oath, of treating all individuals, regardless of race, background, or circumstances, with dignity and our utmost care.
The expansion of this practiced principle from medicine—rather than its modification or replacement—to other institutions and endeavors, is our government’s most realistic and effective tool toward advancing “health equity.” Whatever other problems persist in the provision of health care in the United States, on the issue of equity, the medical profession largely solved the problem long ago.
Put simply, the best way to advance “the highest level of health for all people…regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, geography, [or] preferred language” is to advance “the highest level of health for all people…regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, geography, [or] preferred language.”
Once, this could be fairly criticized as circular pablum. However, as anti-racism and DEI have soaked our politics, they have inevitably seeped into debates about health care and public health programs. The prompt for this comment suggests that these theories have reached the highest levels of government. Putting aside the merits of those theories in political and historical debates, they have no place in medicine, especially in publicly supported programs like Medicare Advantage.
Almost 30 million Americans rely on coverage provided through Medicare Advantage. Enrollment and support for the program continue to grow because of the program’s unique advantages: more choices for patients have, unsurprisingly, led to more patient-centered coverage and care.
These Americans—the very source of the program’s funding—expect and deserve a program guided by the best ethics of the medical profession and not political ideology of any stripe, let alone ideologies such as anti-racism which promote future discrimination as a solution to past discrimination. No American should ever be subject to racial discrimination in a hospital bed, nursing home, doctor’s office, on the phone with a health insurance company, or any other context.
Reforms in Medicare Advantage should focus on how we can raise standards of care for all patients everywhere—not simply how to twist some knobs up and some knobs down so that eventual outcomes are even, however poor those outcomes may be.
After all, the issues raised in decisions regarding Medicare Advantage, like all coverage programs and health care more broadly—our shared pursuit of minimal pain, our shared desire of maximum dignity, and our shared mortality—transcend race in a way few other issues do.
In the medical context, it hardly needs to be said, efforts to single out certain races for special or different treatment can have perverse consequences whether the intent is pure or not. Even noble and successful efforts along these lines inevitably raise the question: if a certain course of treatment or care benefits racial minorities, why not increase the use of or access to that treatment or care among other groups?
For example, SCAN Health Plan, a not-for-profit Medicare Advantage plan with members in California, Arizona, and Nevada, noticed racial disparities in how often members took cholesterol and diabetes medications. The gaps were modest. For example, 86 percent of white members took their medications as prescribed, compared to 84 percent of Hispanics and 81 percent of Blacks. Nevertheless, over the course of eighteen months, SCAN Health Plan initiated incentives to close that gap, which it did by 35 percent.
The company tied senior executives’ bonuses to closing that gap, hired “more than 15 Black and Hispanic care navigators and pharmacists,” held cultural bias training, and prioritized vendor contracts which would increase targeted “outreach to members,” among other things. In all, SCAN Health Plan estimates that it spent “close to $1 million” on the effort.
Even if we stipulate that SCAN Health Plan’s efforts directly caused the change, it raises questions that go to the heart of this request for information. If the health and care of the 14 percent of white members who do not take their medications as prescribed is not less important than the lives of racial minorities, why did this effort only target minorities, instead of targeting all individuals who did not take medications as prescribed? Surely, there are efforts SCAN Health Plan could have taken, including the efforts they did take, which would have closed that gap too.
And, because all choices involve trade-offs, was $1 million worth spending on a program which modestly closed an already modest racial gap as compared to other health initiatives the Plan could have taken which did not target some racial groups over others?
This road leads to a dark place—one in which some Americans receive more care and attention than others. That is acceptable in a triage situation, in which some patients have conditions of different urgencies. It is unacceptable when the level of care and attention is only being determined by the color of the patient’s skin. It is racial discrimination and it has no place in medicine.
Instead, Do No Harm adheres to a succinct, now fifteen-year old formulation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’: the “way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
To the extent racial discrimination persists in medicine, Do No Harm condemns it as a grotesque and inexcusable violation of the professional standards to which we hold ourselves. The solution, in the provision of coverage through Medicare Advantage or any other context in health care, is to enforce those standards. That is a core principle of our organization and the genesis of our founding.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide this comment.
Sincerely,
Stanley Goldfarb, MD
Chairman, Board of Directors
Do No Harm
UAB Heersink School of Medicine Offers Discriminatory Scholarships
Uncategorized Alabama DEI University of Alabama Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffDo No Harm has asked the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights to investigate the University of Alabama – Birmingham Heersink School of Medicine for offering medical school scholarships that discriminate on the basis of race.
Three endowed scholarships to attend the Heersink School of Medicine listed in UAB’s institutional database (archived link) are “restricted to African-American medical students.” By advertising and administering these discriminatory scholarships, UAB appears to be in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We filed complaints for these discriminatory eligibility standards and are requesting prompt resolution from the OCR.
Do No Harm works to protect the healthcare industry and individual practitioners against divisive ideologies and practices. If you are aware of a discriminatory scholarship or policy at your medical or nursing school, or if you didn’t apply because you thought a discriminatory policy worked against you, please let us know.
Do No Harm Comment on Medicare Advantage
Uncategorized United States DEI Testimony and CommentsDo No Harm submitted this request for comment by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Do No Harm, a national association of medical professionals united in protecting medicine from harmful and divisive political ideologies, shares CMS’ goal to advance “the attainment of the highest level of health for all people…regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, geography, preferred language, or other factors that affect access to care and health outcomes.” We appreciate the opportunity to comment on CMS’ request for information regarding this goal in the context of Medicare Advantage.
However, we are concerned that this request for information is rooted in a growing and deeply troubling political ideology which seeks to disembody the medical profession’s most powerful means to that end: our strong tradition, beginning with the Hippocratic Oath, of treating all individuals, regardless of race, background, or circumstances, with dignity and our utmost care.
The expansion of this practiced principle from medicine—rather than its modification or replacement—to other institutions and endeavors, is our government’s most realistic and effective tool toward advancing “health equity.” Whatever other problems persist in the provision of health care in the United States, on the issue of equity, the medical profession largely solved the problem long ago.
Put simply, the best way to advance “the highest level of health for all people…regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, geography, [or] preferred language” is to advance “the highest level of health for all people…regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, geography, [or] preferred language.”
Once, this could be fairly criticized as circular pablum. However, as anti-racism and DEI have soaked our politics, they have inevitably seeped into debates about health care and public health programs. The prompt for this comment suggests that these theories have reached the highest levels of government. Putting aside the merits of those theories in political and historical debates, they have no place in medicine, especially in publicly supported programs like Medicare Advantage.
Almost 30 million Americans rely on coverage provided through Medicare Advantage. Enrollment and support for the program continue to grow because of the program’s unique advantages: more choices for patients have, unsurprisingly, led to more patient-centered coverage and care.
These Americans—the very source of the program’s funding—expect and deserve a program guided by the best ethics of the medical profession and not political ideology of any stripe, let alone ideologies such as anti-racism which promote future discrimination as a solution to past discrimination. No American should ever be subject to racial discrimination in a hospital bed, nursing home, doctor’s office, on the phone with a health insurance company, or any other context.
Reforms in Medicare Advantage should focus on how we can raise standards of care for all patients everywhere—not simply how to twist some knobs up and some knobs down so that eventual outcomes are even, however poor those outcomes may be.
After all, the issues raised in decisions regarding Medicare Advantage, like all coverage programs and health care more broadly—our shared pursuit of minimal pain, our shared desire of maximum dignity, and our shared mortality—transcend race in a way few other issues do.
In the medical context, it hardly needs to be said, efforts to single out certain races for special or different treatment can have perverse consequences whether the intent is pure or not. Even noble and successful efforts along these lines inevitably raise the question: if a certain course of treatment or care benefits racial minorities, why not increase the use of or access to that treatment or care among other groups?
For example, SCAN Health Plan, a not-for-profit Medicare Advantage plan with members in California, Arizona, and Nevada, noticed racial disparities in how often members took cholesterol and diabetes medications. The gaps were modest. For example, 86 percent of white members took their medications as prescribed, compared to 84 percent of Hispanics and 81 percent of Blacks. Nevertheless, over the course of eighteen months, SCAN Health Plan initiated incentives to close that gap, which it did by 35 percent.
The company tied senior executives’ bonuses to closing that gap, hired “more than 15 Black and Hispanic care navigators and pharmacists,” held cultural bias training, and prioritized vendor contracts which would increase targeted “outreach to members,” among other things. In all, SCAN Health Plan estimates that it spent “close to $1 million” on the effort.
Even if we stipulate that SCAN Health Plan’s efforts directly caused the change, it raises questions that go to the heart of this request for information. If the health and care of the 14 percent of white members who do not take their medications as prescribed is not less important than the lives of racial minorities, why did this effort only target minorities, instead of targeting all individuals who did not take medications as prescribed? Surely, there are efforts SCAN Health Plan could have taken, including the efforts they did take, which would have closed that gap too.
And, because all choices involve trade-offs, was $1 million worth spending on a program which modestly closed an already modest racial gap as compared to other health initiatives the Plan could have taken which did not target some racial groups over others?
This road leads to a dark place—one in which some Americans receive more care and attention than others. That is acceptable in a triage situation, in which some patients have conditions of different urgencies. It is unacceptable when the level of care and attention is only being determined by the color of the patient’s skin. It is racial discrimination and it has no place in medicine.
Instead, Do No Harm adheres to a succinct, now fifteen-year old formulation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’: the “way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
To the extent racial discrimination persists in medicine, Do No Harm condemns it as a grotesque and inexcusable violation of the professional standards to which we hold ourselves. The solution, in the provision of coverage through Medicare Advantage or any other context in health care, is to enforce those standards. That is a core principle of our organization and the genesis of our founding.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide this comment.
Sincerely,
Stanley Goldfarb, MD
Chairman, Board of Directors
Do No Harm
This North Carolina Health System Is Now Woke
Uncategorized North Carolina DEI Hospital System Commentary Do No Harm StaffA major North Carolina health system has gone woke. An anonymous stakeholder at Cone Health showed us how the large network of hospitals and medical centers in the Greensboro area is pushing doctors, nurses, and staff to make radical ideology a core part of their work.
The concerned individual sent us several examples showing Cone Health’s descent into identity politics. It has set the tone that everyone it employs must get on board with divisive concepts. A recent email sent to all staff members states: “Creating a Cone Health where diversity, equity and inclusion are our way of being requires all of us to commit to this marathon together… we all own this vision, and we must walk the walk and take action.”
Beyond the rhetoric, Cone Health is pushing employees to participate in specific activities, including:
By forcing these principles onto doctors, nurses, and staff members, Cone Health is injecting dangerous and divisive ideas into its hospitals and clinics, which undermines patient trust. Cone Health should be empowering doctors and nurses to do their jobs at the highest level, not lowering itself by focusing on identity politics.
Have you seen wokeness at your health system or provider? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.
This Pennsylvania Medical School is Violating Civil Rights
Uncategorized Pennsylvania DEI University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffDo No Harm has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights and is requesting an investigation of the University Of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine for its discriminatory Visiting Clerkship for Underrepresented Minority Students in Medicine (URiM) program.
Eligibility criteria for the funded program state that applicants must come from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine; specifically, “Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, or Native American (American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Alaskan Native, mainland Puerto Rican).” This is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and illegally discriminates on the basis of race, color, and national origin.
Do No Harm works to protect the healthcare industry and individual practitioners against divisive ideologies and practices. If you are aware of a discriminatory scholarship or policy at your medical or nursing school, or if you didn’t apply because you thought a discriminatory policy worked against you, please let us know.
Do No Harm’s Supreme Court Shout-Out
Uncategorized Washington DC Commentary Judicial Do No Harm StaffDo No Harm just made an appearance at the Supreme Court. In a brief filed yesterday in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, we were highlighted for showing the rise of woke racial discrimination in healthcare. We’re grateful to Students for Fair Admissions for giving us a shout-out.
This case involves racial discrimination in university admissions, which the Supreme Court currently allows under the guise of “affirmative action.” Students for Fair Admissions points out that by allowing such discrimination in higher education, the Supreme Court has encouraged the spread of this dangerous practice across virtually all of society – including healthcare.
Which leads to our shout-out. The brief mentions our criticism of the American Medical Association, which support race-based decision-making with COVID treatments. As we wrote earlier this year, the AMA supports policies that “force… doctors to change their standard of care based on a patient’s skin color. The name for that is discrimination, and it has no place in the doctor’s office.”
Of course, this is far from the only example of racial discrimination in healthcare. We’ve also highlighted how many medical schools are offering race-based scholarships and how one of Harvard Medical School’s teaching hospitals is providing preferential access to care for specific races. Driving by woke activists, discrimination is becoming more prevalent in healthcare by the day.
We hope the Supreme Court puts fairness and equality over racial discrimination. The upcoming case may not deal with healthcare explicitly, but the right ruling would still send a message that the medical establishment can’t ignore. It’s about time the federal courts helped stop discrimination in healthcare.
This Oregon Medical School is Violating Civil Rights
Uncategorized Oregon DEI Oregon Health and Science University Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffDo No Harm is asking the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights to investigate the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) School of Medicine for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. OHSU operates the GME-to-Faculty Diversity Advancement Pathway (FDAP) program, which restricts applicants to junior medical faculty who are underrepresented in medicine. This population is defined by OHSU as “(a) Black or African American, (b) Hispanic or Latino/a (individual of any gender identity originating from Mexico, Central or South America, or Caribbean cultures), (c) American Indian or Alaska Native, and (d) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.” The requirement is restated on the application, and preference is given for applicants who have contributed to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field of medical education.
Junior faculty members who participate in the FDAP receive an individualized advancement plan and are promoted within 7 years of starting the program.
Do No Harm works to protect the healthcare industry and individual practitioners against divisive ideologies and practices. If you are aware of a discriminatory scholarship or policy at your medical or nursing school, or if you didn’t apply because you thought a discriminatory policy worked against you, please let us know.
Yale Sees Racism Where It Doesn’t Exist
Uncategorized Connecticut DEI Yale University Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffA tipster at the Yale School of Medicine just let us know about a telling development at the prestigious institution. The short version: Yale is ditching a clinically proven kidney diagnostic tool on the grounds that it’s racist, but it’s not. The woke crowd sees racism at every level of healthcare even when the evidence says they’re wrong.
Here’s the long version. Yale is abandoning a test that physicians have used for decades to diagnose and manage chronic kidney disease, which afflicts millions of Americans. The test was designed according to the highest ethical and evidence-based standards. Crucially, the test automatically changes its findings for African American patients by 15%. That reflects real-world clinical experience, which has decisively proven that African Americans have a consistently higher level of the chemical compound the test measures.
How does science constitute racism? It doesn’t, but woke activists have claimed it anyway. They argue that simply accounting for racial differences is itself racist. Unsurprisingly, a small group of vocal activists have spent years demanding this kidney test be changed.
Yale has now given in. When announcing this decision, Yale’s Chief Clinical Officer, Thomas J. Balcezak, declared that “race-based assessments have been used for decades in American healthcare to influence medical decisions, and more recently, they have been found to reduce the quality of care received by patients of color.”
But there’s no evidence this long-standing kidney test has hurt anyone. To the contrary: The test enables physicians to provide better care to minority patients, because it accurately accounts for medical reality. While Yale is replacing this test, the new one will add costs to care without changing that care one iota.
Sadly, the facts don’t matter to the activist crowd. They will find racism regardless of whether it’s there, because that’s the whole point of woke ideology. But surely we can find new and better ways to diagnose and treat patients without falsely claiming that proven methods are racist.
This Kansas Medical School and Medical Center Are Violating Civil Rights
Uncategorized Kansas DEI University of Kansas School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffYet another academic medical center is engaging in discriminatory practices that violate the civil rights of students who are seeking admission to its Doctor of Medicine program.
Do No Harm Medicine is asking the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate the University of Kansas School of Medicine and KU Medical Center for the Urban Scholars Program for Students Underrepresented in Medicine, as the university discriminates on the basis of race, color, and national origin. As stated by the KU School of Medicine Office of Diversity and Inclusion, “Applicants must be a member of a population that is underrepresented in medicine (as defined by the Admissions Committee, including Native American, Black or African American, Hispanic/Latinx, Cambodian, Laotian, or Vietnamese).” These restrictions on who may participate in a publicly funded program are in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Students who enroll and then complete the Urban Scholars Program receive “assured admission” to the University of Kansas School of Medicine, according to the program’s official webpage.
Do No Harm works to protect the healthcare industry and individual practitioners against divisive ideologies and practices. If you are aware of a discriminatory scholarship or policy at your medical or nursing school, or if you didn’t apply because you thought a discriminatory policy worked against you, please let us know.
Physician Feature: Dr. Michael Ready
Uncategorized Texas DEI Commentary Do No Harm StaffPhysicians often ask us: How can I fight woke ideology? Dr. Michael Ready, a physician out of Temple, Texas, shows the answer.
Dr. Ready is a long-time member of the Texas Medical Association (TMA), serving for many years on its Council of Medical Education. He’s seen firsthand how divisive ideas like “systemic racism” and “implicit bias” have crept into medicine in service of diversity and equity. This runs the risk of many unintended consequences such as lowering of academic standards. But more importantly this ideology divides us, focusing on our differences and not our humanity and what unites us.
Faced with these threats, Dr. Ready is using his voice to help the Texas Medical Association steer clear of identity politics. Here’s how he puts it:
“I’m a proud member of the TMA and I want it to continue advocating for patients and physicians. Medical associations are important for keeping medicine principled and patient focused. Identity politics will corrupt our mission as it focuses on immutable characteristics – which is an unfalsifiable premise that is ultimately divisive.”
Most notably, he’s introduced a resolution that would ensure the TMA remains a forum where free speech is welcome. This matters because activists want to stifle physicians and medical associations from speaking out. They don’t want anyone to push back on their claim that physicians are racist and healthcare is broken beyond repair.
But Dr. Ready knows that pushback is essential. Under his resolution, the TMA would always allow free and unfettered debate on these issues, so that false woke claims can be challenged with medical facts.
Dr. Ready is also criticizing the “Implicit Association Test,” which is creeping into medical education to show future physicians their supposed “bias.” He knows the test lacks any grounding in medical science, while sowing distrust between physicians and patients of different colors. He’s urging the TMA to keep it from influencing medical care.
Dr. Ready is committed to this cause for the long haul:
“Someone has to speak out, because what’s happening in healthcare isn’t right. I know many of my peers share my concerns and we owe it to patients and society to protect medicine for future generations. When we don’t speak up the public believes that the activists are speaking for all of us.
With activists and ideologues targeting healthcare from every angle, physicians are key to pushing back and protecting the practice of medicine. People listen when physicians talk, and their voices are heard far and wide. Dr. Michael Ready is a model, and we hope his example inspires even more physicians to stand up for their convictions and to speak out against what we know is not true.
The Office for Civil Rights is Investigating NYU and Pitt for Discrimination
Uncategorized New York, Pennsylvania DEI New York University, University of Pittsburgh Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffIn response to complaints filed by Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark Perry, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened investigations of two elite medical schools for advertising and awarding scholarships that discriminate based on race or ethnicity: New York University and University of Pittsburgh.
The NYU Grossman School of Medicine partners with its Office of Diversity Affairs to sponsor the Visiting Elective for Underrepresented in Medicine Program, which provides a stipend of up to $2,000 for visiting students whose backgrounds are underrepresented in medicine. “We define these backgrounds,” it says, “to include the following races/ethnicities: Black or African American, Latinx, Native American, Native Pacific Islander, or Native Alaskan.”
Similarly, the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine offers the Carey Andrew-Jaja, MD Visiting Elective Scholarship Program for 4th Year Students Underrepresented in Medicine, with the same requirements and stipend amount. “Eligible candidates,” according to the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, are “from the following backgrounds/heritage: African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, and Native Alaskans.”
Title VI prohibits educational institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating “on the basis of race, color, or national origin.”
Do No Harm works to protect healthcare against divisive ideologies and practices and calls on others to do. If you are aware of a discriminatory scholarship or policy at your medical or nursing school, or if you didn’t apply because you thought you were not eligible, please let us know.
Health Affairs Runs Our Ad – And Admits the Truth
Uncategorized Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffDo No Harm is grateful to Health Affairs for two reasons.
First, the prestigious medical journal which calls itself the “bible of health policy” ran our advertisement in its latest issue. The ad asks, “What is anti-racism?” and asks readers to contact Do No Harm if they’ve seen the discriminatory and divisive policies that anti-racism demands. It’s good for Health Affairs readers to encounter ideas that aren’t steeped in woke ideology, and it’s unusual for a publication or institution committed to “anti-racism” to allow the presence of a dissenting opinion.
The second reason we’re grateful is this: Health Affairs has clearly admitted its subordination of science to politics.
Alongside our ad, the journal ran a long note from its editor, Alan Weil, explaining why Health Affairs accepted an ad it finds “objectionable” and defending the racialist approach his journal has taken to scientific publishing. Much of the statement is a repetition of hackneyed, empty slogans such as declaring the Journal’s “commitment to being anti-racist and dismantling systems that disadvantage certain populations.”
Dr. Weil asks what our goal is at Do No Harm. Our answer is an equitable society – one committed to the values of liberalism and equality, not “anti-racism.” An equitable society is not one in which fellowships such as the one Health Affairs offers are only for people of a certain skin color (contrary to the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of the civil rights laws). It is not one where the skin color of authors and reviewers is collected for whatever purpose.
Dr. Weil asked us for proof that Health Affairs had brought “race and other non-academic factors into the peer review process.” We supplied his own article to support that claim. The link speaks volumes. In that article, he states that it is his duty to “advance equity in scholarly publishing” and he acknowledges that he is recruiting authors and reviewers simply because of their skin color and not because of their expertise.
The example he then provides is of requiring a Native American to review a scientific paper about Native American health – a deep corruption of the scientific enterprise, and one that will undermine the essential nature of the peer review process, whose purpose is to ensure rigor, impartiality, and excellence.
We’ll continue to sound the alarms when Health Affairs or any other organization accuses the entire medical field of “systemic racism,” “implicit bias,” or any other broad-brush attack against the decency and integrity of tens of thousands of health care practitioners in this country who care for the sick with no regard for the color of their skin. Making “anti-racism” a pillar of healthcare means making racial discrimination, demoralized clinicians, politicized standards, and patient mistrust the pillars of American healthcare.
Must Read: The Corruption Of Medicine
Uncategorized Commentary Do No Harm StaffFinally, public attention is focusing on woke discrimination and division in healthcare. The latest proof comes courtesy of Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald, who wrote about this dangerous trend in City Journal’s Summer 2022 issue.
Heather correctly writes:
This view is leading the medical establishment to abandon excellence in favor of diversity: “Medical schools and medical societies are discarding traditional standards of merit in order to alter the demographic characteristics of their profession.”
Heather walks through the many examples where standards are being waived or lowered, including the MCAT, which shapes medical school admissions, and the USMLE Step One, which plays a major role in residency assignments. She also notes that when Do No Harm chairman Dr. Stan Goldfarb called out the danger of this approach, he was widely attacked by the activists who now control the medical establishment.
Heather also shows how the quality of medical students is declining, especially as they focus more on activism. And she notes that ideology is leading to worse medical research:
It matters who heads research ventures and medical faculties. Top scientists can identify the most promising directions of study and organize the most productive research teams. But the diversity push is discouraging some scientists from competing at all.
What is the result of the corruption of medicine? Worse physicians, worse medical research, and worse health outcomes for patients. Thank you, Heather MacDonald, for joining Do No Harm in pointing out the facts that Americans need to know.
This Missouri Medical School Is Violating Civil Rights
Uncategorized Missouri DEI Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffAdd the University of Missouri School of Medicine to the growing list of medical schools that violate students’ civil rights.
Do No Harm has filed an official complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights against the university. It alleges that the program engages in racially discriminatory practices in its internal scholarship program.
The School of Medicine’s financial aid office manages ten scholarships that are awarded only to students it describes as “underrepresented” or “minority.”
“First preference” for these scholarships, it says, “shall be given to African-American and/or Hispanic students.” It specifically identifies “underrepresented minorities” as “blacks, Native Americans (that is American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), Mexican Americans, and mainland Puerto Ricans.”
These limits on who may receive a scholarship violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and Do No Harm is asking the Office of Civil Rights to swiftly investigate and correct the unfair and unlawful actions of the Mizzou School of Medicine. The university must be held accountable for its flagrant racial discrimination, which is also prohibited by the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
Do No Harm works to protect the healthcare industry and individual practitioners against divisive ideologies and practices and calls on others to do so. If you are aware of a discriminatory scholarship or policy at your medical or nursing school, or if you didn’t apply because you thought you were not eligible, please let us know.
The AAMC’s Supreme Court Shenanigans
Uncategorized Nonprofit Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Association of American Medical Colleges wants medical schools to discriminate on the basis of race. That’s the reality of the amicus brief the AAMC just filed with the Supreme Court. The case is Students for Fair Admission v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, but every medical school in the country will be affected by the outcome. The Supreme Court must side against racial discrimination.
The AAMC supports Harvard’s system of preferential treatment (i.e., discrimination) for applicants in its Supreme Court brief. No wonder: Most medical schools are moving to prioritize some racial and ethnic minorities applicants over others. Yet the AAMC’s claimed scientific and medical grounds for such overt discrimination are non-existent.
In its brief, the AAMC asserts that “diversity is vital to healthcare outcomes.” This assertion reflects the woke belief in “racial concordance,” which involves patients seeing physicians of the same race, ethnicity, or gender. To achieve such concordance, the argument goes, medical schools need to recruit more diverse students. In support of this extraordinary claim – which essentially justifies segregation in healthcare – the AAMC cites two studies without telling the true story.
The first study involved a survey of University of Virginia medical students on their attitudes about the biologic characteristics of black and white patients. It found that 50 percent of medical students thought, erroneously, that black patients have fewer nerve endings and thicker skin than white patients and therefore would perceive less pain. Yet the AAMC doesn’t note that only first and second-year students made this mistake. The University of Virginia successfully corrected these students’ error, helping them provide the best care to black patients.
The second study regards racial concordance between black babies and black neonatologists, yet the AAMC doesn’t acknowledge its widely identified flaws. First, the study authors could not identify the race of all the doctors involved in the care. Second, patient outcomes depended on the team caring for the patient. If an emergency occurred at 3 a.m., it was not the attending physician who cared for the patient, but rather nurses and on-call physicians. Third, the data didn’t account for physicians who transferred the sickest babies to academic hospitals, which involves higher mortality due to underlying conditions. This information was not factored into the study, discrediting its conclusions.
Most importantly, the AAMC completely ignores the large body of literature that contradicts the claim that doctor/patient racial concordance leads to better clinical outcomes. Notably, a large 2011 study used a database of 22,000 patients to show that racial concordance between doctors and patients does not produce meaningful improvements in health outcomes.
Add it all up, and what do you get? The AAMC is baselessly justifying racial discrimination in medical school admissions, while dangerously promoting racial segregation in medical practice. Hopefully the Supreme Court will see through this charade and ensure that medical schools admit students based on skill, not skin color.
Have you seen discrimination practices in the name of “diversity” at your medical school? Please contact us, securely and anonymously.
Alert: Medical Education Is Now Officially Indoctrination
Uncategorized Commentary Do No Harm StaffMedical students will soon be forced to learn the most aggressive and radical version of woke ideology. That’s the reality of the new “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Competencies” rolled out this month by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which essentially oversees what medical schools teach.
Why should you care? Because what happens in medical school ultimately shapes all of healthcare. The AAMC can enforce these competencies – which are basically the standards that students are expected to learn – by making them part of school accreditation and then testing students for them in the MCAT. Future physicians will be expected to regurgitate and practice things that have nothing to do with treating patients.
Here’s a small slice of the radicalism embedded within these competencies:
It keeps getting worse. The competencies also cover allyship, implicit bias, you name it. And residency graduates and training physicians are covered, too.
The former must translate concepts like “anti-racism” into clinical practice, which means discriminating on the basis of race, either by providing different levels of access to or standards of care. The latter must be “role models” for medical students, showing them how to “engage with systems to disrupt oppressive practices.” For students, there will be no escape from the brainwashing.
If these competencies are implemented, today’s medical students, who are tomorrow’s medical professionals, are going to be some of the worst woke activists in America. Students, parents, professors, policymakers – if people don’t intervene and demand that medical schools teaching medicine, then healthcare will completely collapse into a radical, racially divisive mess that hurts patients in the name of helping them.
Is wokeness already being force-fed at your medical school? Let us know – securely and anonymously.
This Is The Woke Endgame in Healthcare
Uncategorized Commentary Do No Harm StaffWe’re often asked: What do woke activists ultimately want from healthcare? A big part of the answer can be found in a new scholarly paper published in the prestigious journal, Academic Medicine. It’s as radical as it is sweeping, grounded fully in Critical Race Theory. Ultimately, the woke vision has nothing to do with healthcare – and everything to do with divisive ideology.
The paper is titled, “The REPAIR Project: A Prospectus for Change Toward Racial Justice in Medical Education and Health Sciences Research.” The acronym REPAIR stands for “Reparations and Anti-Institutional Racism.” Sure enough, reparations is one of the organizing themes: “The theme of medical reparations builds on the longstanding call for slavery reparations.”
Another theme is “abolition,” which “examines the intersections of incarceration, policing, and surveillance in health care and the role of clinicians in furthering or stopping oppressive practices.” The final major theme is “decolonizing the health sciences,” which “targets ‘othering’ practices entrenched in scientific methodologies that have arisen from colonial-era beliefs and practices around imperialism.”
Practically speaking, this vision “calls for an end to police violence and the torture of Black people,” while “compelling physicians to intervene to prevent such violence.” It also means “questioning the use of armed police for security in hospitals,” which “turns healing places into sites of risk not just for undocumented, paroled, or profiled individuals.”
What’s more, the paper “calls on physicians working in the criminal legal system to simultaneously advocate for ending racial incarceration.” And it says “clinicians working in prisons can become complicit in advancing racialized incarceration practices by providing and/or withholding health care for the incarcerated.”
The paper’s authors explicitly state their goal: “transforming medical education, clinical training, and health sciences research,” which will ultimately transform all of healthcare. They also state they’ve “learned that a tightly organized and passionate group of students and faculty can make impactful changes at a medical institution with amenable leadership, particularly during moments of popular protest.”
Perhaps the only good thing the authors write is that “bringing critical theory concepts” (which means Critical Race Theory) “into medical education and practice remains a considerable challenge.” If physicians and patients continue to push back on this radical agenda, that challenge will grow – and for the health and well-being of the American people, it must grow, fast.
The American Board of Internal Medicine Is Sick with Hypocrisy
Uncategorized Pennsylvania DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThat’s the sad reality as American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation hosts its Forum in Colorado Springs, from July 30th to August 2nd. The Board and its Foundation are actively undermining medical professionals and patients while claiming to empower them – to the point of endorsing discrimination, spreading misinformation, and lowering the standards of medical care and training.
Every American should care about this rank hypocrisy. ABIM not only certifies physicians and influences the care that patients receive, it also helps set priorities for the nation’s healthcare leaders. If physicians and patients don’t demand better, this storied organization will be responsible for hurting the health and well-being of millions.
The problem with ABIM and the ABIM Foundation is simple: They’re now putting identity politics and radical racial ideology ahead of medical professionalism and excellence. They rightly point out that health disparities exist among communities of color, but the solutions the Board and Foundation advocate couldn’t be more wrong. They’re as disturbing as they are destructive:
This is no way to promote equal access and improve health outcomes for communities of color. Physicians and patients deserve to know that the American Board of Internal Medicine and its Foundation are hurting the people they claim to help.
How can the American Board of Internal Medicine cure itself?
Are you a member of ABIM?
Do you have ABIM certification?
Have you attended an ABIM Foundation summer forum?
If you’ve witnessed or suffered from this hypocrisy that’s undermining patient health and medical professionals, Do No Harm wants to hear from you – and help you.
A Dishonorable End To A Medical Honor Society
Uncategorized Pennsylvania DEI University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine Commentary Do No Harm StaffPity the Alpha Omega Alpha medical honor society. At the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, the 120-year-old institution has now been hollowed out by woke activists. Apparently the society’s entire purpose – which is to recognize outstanding student achievement – is incompatible with the demands of diversity.
Here’s the backstory. Last year, the Perelman school convened a taskforce on Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA). Its goal was to “promote racial equity and less competition among students,” while also determining the future of the honor society on campus. The taskforce released its ruling on July 20th, and while AOA will still be allowed to exist, it will not be allowed to reward the best students when it matters most.
Under the new system, AOA can still induct medical students on an annual basis. But it can no longer do so before those students are matched with their residency and training programs. The reason? The school doesn’t want the most qualified students to get accepted to residency programs ahead of others, especially those who are “under-represented in medicine.”
Rarely will you see more blatant disregard for merit – or a more brazen elevation of diversity above quality. Dr. Stan Goldfarb, Do No Harm’s chairman and Perelman’s former associate dean of curriculum, has spent years pointing out these dangerous trends. The medical honor society (and the outstanding students it recognizes) deserve better than this dishonorable attack.