The ACGME, the guiding body of graduate medical education, is obsessed with assessment. That makes sense, since it’s responsible for assuring that residents who complete training programs are ready to enter the independent practice of medicine. To ensure such readiness, the ACGME has decreed that training programs should establish a fairly uniform assessment system based on demonstration of competencies in a number of domains of practice.
But this is a problem for activists focused on woke identity politics. A coalition of training programs from Harvard, University of Virginia, and Emory University recently examined how their “underrepresented in Medicine” (URiM) trainees were performing. They studied 3,600 individual assessments of 703 residents, 13.4% of which were URiM. These residents consistently scored lower on five key dimensions including medical knowledge, systems-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, professionalism, and interpersonal and communication skills.
Most people, when encountering such results, would conclude that either the assessment system might be flawed and unreliable or that these trainees were simply not performing as well as their peers. The authors of the study, Drs. Robin et al, ignore the latter possibility. They offered three explanations for the results. First, the faculty might be biased; second, the learning environment may not be “inclusive”; or third, the assessment system itself has “structural inequities”. Yet by not even considering the possibility that many of these trainees were actually performing poorly, the study authors should cause patients to worry that less capable students might be entering the medical profession.
Do No Harm chairman, Dr. Stan Goldfarb, had the temerity to point out this possibility on Twitter. He wrote, “Three possible explanations are provided. All are due to external agents. Could it be they were just less good at being residents?” The mob appeared.
For them, every question must be viewed through the lens of Critical Race Theory. Thus, the only answer to the performance problems exposed by the study is racism. And questioning URiM trainees’ competence is apparently racist. So is worrying about the decline in meritocracy as the basis of acceptance into the most demanding training programs.
Do No Harm has now heard from hundreds of physicians and other healthcare workers – including prominent figures in academic medicine – who are distressed and concerned about this trend. We’re seeing more and more evidence that medical educators are withholding direct feedback and criticism to trainees because they fear being labeled as racist or sexist. This gives rise to even more concern. Is it possible trainees are not improving (to the same degree) without this constructive criticism? Is it possible that assessment is a necessary place for faculty to be honest about the performance of trainees? And why didn’t the study authors even consider that?
Medicine has always prided itself on its meritocratic ethos, hence the prevalence of honor societies, yearly award ceremonies, national and international prizes, academic advancement, and other forms of recognition for excellence. Abandoning meritocracy in the name of “equity” is profoundly depressing and will be harmful to physician expertise and patient well-being. And the many minority trainees who do excel deserve to be recognized, instead of being told they’re victims.
Michigan’s Governor Couldn’t Be More Wrong
Uncategorized Michigan DEI Commentary Do No Harm StaffMichigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is all-in when it comes to corrupting healthcare. On June 1, the state began mandating that all current and future physicians take recurring implicit bias training. The Governor celebrated by claiming this woke policy will “make Michigan safer, healthier, and more just.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
Look no further than the kind of divisive and destructive indoctrination this mandate involves. The Michigan State Medical Society recently hosted an “Implicit Bias Training” event that meets the requirements of the new policy, and it’s already clear it’s more concerned with ideology than medicine.
The course is designed around the basic assumption that physicians are biased, an unsupported claim that can destroy patient trust in healthcare. The training’s supporting materials all but accuse physicians of adopting stereotypes that stop them providing the best care to minority patients. This is standard fare: Activists want to convince physicians they’re inherently biased in order to rebuild healthcare on a woke foundation.
What is that foundation? A post-training survey explicitly condones radical ideology: “it is important for primary care providers/physicians to devote extra attention/time to the health needs of their minority patients.” The name for that is racial discrimination, which has no place in healthcare.
We’ve heard from numerous Michigan physicians about how insulting this training is – and the entire Michigan mandate, for that matter. Contrary to what Gov. Whitmer is saying, putting identity politics ahead of individual patients is unhealthy and unjust.
These Five Medical Schools Are Violating Civil Rights
Uncategorized Florida, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin DEI Medical College of Wisconsin, University of Florida College of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, University of Oklahoma, University of Utah School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffWhy are so many medical schools violating civil rights? That’s the question Do No Harm is asking in five complaints filed on Wednesday with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. These schools offer scholarships that are eligible to people of certain races, which is incompatible with the Constitution and federal law.
The medical schools in question are affiliated with the University of Florida, the University of Oklahoma, the University of Utah, and the University of Minnesota, as well as the Medical College of Wisconsin. While more than 140 medical schools and institutions nationwide offer questionable scholarships, these five medical schools are particularly noteworthy.
Consider the scholarship at the University of Florida College of Medicine. It is available to members of certain “racial and ethnic populations.” They spell out what that means – people who are “African Americans and/or Black, American Indian, Alaska Native, Naive Hawaiian, Hispanic/Latinx, and Pacific Islander.” The application also asks for an applicant photograph!
Similar problems exist in the other four medical schools’ scholarships, all of which are restricted to people of specific skin colors or backgrounds. As our complaints note, the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits racial preferences, as does the 1964 Civil Rights Act for universities that receive federal funds.
We look forward to seeing how the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and these medical schools respond to our complaints and end unnecessary and illegal discrimination. And we hope this starts a trend of medical schools abandoning racial discrimination in favor of equal treatment for all.
Member’s Letter to the Medical Society of Delaware
Uncategorized Delaware DEI Commentary Do No Harm StaffDo No Harm member Dr. Jim Lally recently sent us a copy of a letter he wrote to the Medical Society of Delaware in response to their promotion of the discredited Implicit Association Test. A shortened and adapted version is posted below:
Dear Medical Society of Delaware:
I have been a member of the Medical Society of Delaware for forty-six years. I have also been on the editorial board of the Delaware Medical Journal for thirty years. I was greatly disappointed in the Society’s recent mailing, “Committee on DEI Requests your Participation” and its implications for the Delaware medical community.
At the heart of the communique is this statement: “An Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures attitudes and beliefs that people may not know about.” I join many others who are academicians and well-versed in psychological testing who have argued that this attempt to measure implicit bias and unconscious racism is flawed in its methodology and its application—it is a fool’s errand. Meta analysis has shown that the above techniques are “a weak predictor of behavior.” I will be forwarding to you two articles that analyze IAT in detail. One was published in Quartz and the other in Scientific American. I suggest that you read them.
The cultural storms that have engulfed America in the last few years have seductively cajoled organizations such as the AMA to embrace wokeism. The Medical Society of Delaware has thoughtlessly joined the parade of lemmings who are marching to the AMA’s tunes.
The AMA has a pseudo-scholarly manifesto, “Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts,” that asks physicians to “promote critical reflection on language and word choice.” It is taking a page unedited from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, in which he creates a new language, Newspeak. Orwell later commented that Newspeak was “designed to diminish the range of thought.”
Political philosophers have shown that centralized power is held by those who control the narrative and that is defined by the language employed. The AMA manifesto writes of “changing the narrative” and it “is essential to transform power…end dominant privilege.”
It is in the ten page “Glossary of Key Terms” in the AMA’s manifesto that the uninitiated will find most illuminating. Take its definition of “class consciousness,” which includes the phrase “recognition by workers as a social class in opposition to capitalists and to capitalism.” One has to wonder why the “Discovery of The Americas” is also included in the glossary. It is defined as: “The land known as the Americas was not discovered; it was conquered and appropriated.”
In my opinion the AMA and MSD have lost their way and are heading in the wrong direction in this watershed moment for American medicine. So after all these years I find it distressing that I feel compelled to break off all contact with the Medical Society. That is most unfortunate but I feel it is the only way that I can say: I PROTEST.
Sincerely yours,
James F. Lally, MD
Michigan Is Corrupting Medical Licensing
Uncategorized Michigan DEI Commentary Do No Harm StaffAre you or someone you know a medical professional in Michigan? As of June 1, anyone who fits this description is now required to take ongoing courses on their supposed “implicit bias.” The Great Lakes State is well on its way to politicizing medicine and destroying patient trust in healthcare.
Michigan’s mandate is blunt: It says medical professionals need to combat their “attitude[s] or internalized stereotype[s]” that “contribut[e] to unequal treatment of people based on race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion.” In other words, medical professionals can’t be trusted to treat patients equally. Rarely will you see a more brazen insult to those who’ve devoted their lives to helping people.
The new rule covers physicians, nurses, counselors, therapists, athletic trainers, and about two dozen other types of medical professionals. Anyone applying for a license to practice medicine must complete two hours of implicit bias training, while those renewing their licenses must take an hour of training per year. This means medical professionals will be constantly bombarded with accusations of bias.
As we’ve pointed out many times, such training injures everyone involved. It tells medical professionals they aren’t capable of providing the highest quality care, while also telling them to focus on their patients’ race above real medical concerns. And it tells patients that their physicians and nurses can’t be trusted, since the entire profession is apparently biased. That’s a recipe for incentivizing people to avoid the care they need.
Such is the nature of woke healthcare: It hurts the people it claims to help. Michigan should abandon this absurd medical licensing mandate immediately, before it hurts medical professionals and patients alike.
If you’re dealing with this mandate in Michigan, or know of a similar requirement in another state, please let us know.
Beware The Biden White House’s Plans For Healthcare
Uncategorized Federal DEI Commentary Executive Do No Harm StaffThe Biden White House is quietly trying to force woke ideology into healthcare. So every American should pay attention to what the administration’s “COVID-19 equity initiatives” leader recently said: Namely, that more radical and divisive healthcare policies are on the way.
Dr. Cameron Webb said as much in a May 17th Washington Post event on health equity. He said:
We already have a hint about what this means. As our executive director Kristina Rasmussen has written, the current White House is bribing doctors to implement potentially discriminatory “anti-racism” plans. It’s also working with Congress to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on “equity” in healthcare.
The transparent goal is to put identity politics – not individualized patient treatment – at the heart of medicine. Equity is fundamentally opposed to medical excellence, since it requires that everyone be guaranteed the same outcomes, even if that means offering some people preferential care because of their skin color. The goal of healthcare should be to improve outcomes for everyone, regardless of what they look like.
Dr. Webb’s recent comments indicate that what we’ve seen is just the beginning. The federal campaign to turn physicians into activists and replace medical science with social demands is just getting started. If it isn’t stopped, patients will suffer most.
If you’re aware of federal plans to bring woke ideology into healthcare, please let us know.
Medical Society: Don’t Say Kidney Disease
Uncategorized DEI Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe American Society of Nephrology (ASN) exists to support the study and treatment of kidney disease. So why is it wading into the debate over Florida’s new education law? The answer is simple: In the world of woke healthcare, medical institutions and their members must be political activists, even if it comes at the expense of helping patients and treating diseases.
A Do No Harm member clued us into the Society’s increasing politicization. In a recent email about its upcoming Kidney Week conference in Orlando, ASN President Susan E. Quaggin criticized Florida’s legislation, which the media has referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill:
What does this bill, which dealt with K-3 education, have to do with kidney disease? Absolutely nothing. Yet the ASN still feels the need to prove its commitment to woke ideology.
While it doesn’t plan to cancel or move the conference, the Society promises to devote its scarce resources toward social activism. That includes, among other things, “voicing our opposition to the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill and other discriminatory practices” and “continuing to advocate for the health of undocumented immigrants.”
Such is the sorry state of virtually every leading medical institution. At a time when chronic kidney disease is soaring, the professional association focused on dealing with this crisis is more concerned about education laws in Florida. The American Society of Nephrology should be ashamed – and its members should ask what else it’s doing to undermine its own mission and American healthcare.
These Medical Scholarships Are Discriminatory – And Unconstitutional
Uncategorized DEI Commentary Do No Harm StaffShould medical schools and research fellowships pick students based on race? The obvious answer is no. Yet a growing number of medical schools and institutions are explicitly discriminating by skin color. Not only is this destructive of medical standards, it’s likely unconstitutional.
The Association of American Medical College currently lists more than 140 scholarship opportunities for visiting medical students who are “underrepresented in medicine.” These scholarships are offered by medical schools, hospitals, and a variety of other healthcare institutions. While their details differ, the scholarships generally share making racial preferences the key to an applicant’s success.
This is wrong for two reasons. First and foremost, making race the decisive factor in awarding scholarships will lower the standard of medical care and excellence. Candidates for visiting student positions and fellowships should be judged on test scores, grades at their home institutions, and other professional criteria, all of which demonstrates their ability to excel in the medical field. Ignoring or downplaying these standards does not bode well for healthcare. While there’s small room for non-merit-based criteria, the line should be drawn at economic need or the first member of a family to go to medical school.
Second, these scholarships are broadly unconstitutional. Both the Constitution and federal law prohibit racial preferences. Yet that’s exactly what these scholarships are: Preferential treatment based on race. While some institutions have tried to get around this by adding tricky language to their scholarship criteria, it’s clear that the goal is to hire people of some skin colors over others. That is unacceptable and un-American.
Medical schools and providers that offer these scholarships are opening themselves up to lawsuits. They should abandon this racial discrimination before that happens.
Do you know of a race-based scholarship or program at your institution? Let us know.
Don’t Weaken Medical Residency Standards
Uncategorized United States DEI Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe ACGME, the guiding body of graduate medical education, is obsessed with assessment. That makes sense, since it’s responsible for assuring that residents who complete training programs are ready to enter the independent practice of medicine. To ensure such readiness, the ACGME has decreed that training programs should establish a fairly uniform assessment system based on demonstration of competencies in a number of domains of practice.
But this is a problem for activists focused on woke identity politics. A coalition of training programs from Harvard, University of Virginia, and Emory University recently examined how their “underrepresented in Medicine” (URiM) trainees were performing. They studied 3,600 individual assessments of 703 residents, 13.4% of which were URiM. These residents consistently scored lower on five key dimensions including medical knowledge, systems-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, professionalism, and interpersonal and communication skills.
Most people, when encountering such results, would conclude that either the assessment system might be flawed and unreliable or that these trainees were simply not performing as well as their peers. The authors of the study, Drs. Robin et al, ignore the latter possibility. They offered three explanations for the results. First, the faculty might be biased; second, the learning environment may not be “inclusive”; or third, the assessment system itself has “structural inequities”. Yet by not even considering the possibility that many of these trainees were actually performing poorly, the study authors should cause patients to worry that less capable students might be entering the medical profession.
Do No Harm chairman, Dr. Stan Goldfarb, had the temerity to point out this possibility on Twitter. He wrote, “Three possible explanations are provided. All are due to external agents. Could it be they were just less good at being residents?” The mob appeared.
For them, every question must be viewed through the lens of Critical Race Theory. Thus, the only answer to the performance problems exposed by the study is racism. And questioning URiM trainees’ competence is apparently racist. So is worrying about the decline in meritocracy as the basis of acceptance into the most demanding training programs.
Do No Harm has now heard from hundreds of physicians and other healthcare workers – including prominent figures in academic medicine – who are distressed and concerned about this trend. We’re seeing more and more evidence that medical educators are withholding direct feedback and criticism to trainees because they fear being labeled as racist or sexist. This gives rise to even more concern. Is it possible trainees are not improving (to the same degree) without this constructive criticism? Is it possible that assessment is a necessary place for faculty to be honest about the performance of trainees? And why didn’t the study authors even consider that?
Medicine has always prided itself on its meritocratic ethos, hence the prevalence of honor societies, yearly award ceremonies, national and international prizes, academic advancement, and other forms of recognition for excellence. Abandoning meritocracy in the name of “equity” is profoundly depressing and will be harmful to physician expertise and patient well-being. And the many minority trainees who do excel deserve to be recognized, instead of being told they’re victims.
When Harvard Medical School Started To Go Wrong
Uncategorized Massachusetts DEI Harvard Medical School Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffThis week, Do No Harm is launching a major advertising campaign around Harvard Medical School’s graduation. We’re shining a light on the school’s dangerous slide toward woke ideology. So it’s worth asking: When did America’s most prestigious medical school turn toward division and discrimination?
A big part of the answer can be found in the school’s “Task Force on Diversity and Inclusion Report.” Released in 2020, the document is breathtaking in its embrace of identity politics. The report lays out a comprehensive plan to make woke ideology central to the school’s work. That includes wholesale changes to student and faculty recruitment, the promotion of faculty and administrators, and the entire infrastructure of Harvard Medical School and its affiliated hospitals and research institutions.
To start, the plan calls for a dramatic expansion of “the frequency, quality, impact, and reach of current unconscious bias training” for faculty. That includes “greater and regular re-engagement” to ensure that faculty are constantly forced to “discuss and learn about unconscious bias and microaggression.” It also calls for the school to “support efforts” focused specifically on “social justice,” while making race, not merit, a key consideration in the students it recruits.
The plan also urges the school to create “protected time for diversity-related work” (meaning less time for medical education and research) as well as “financial support for programs that directly address diversity, inclusion and belonging strategic priorities.” It also demands “official groups and committees focused on monitoring diversity efforts” school-wide. Practically speaking, that means a vast bureaucracy charged with forcing ideology on students, faculty, and beyond.
The report even attacks Harvard Medical School’s home city. It says Boston is a “deterrent” to its diversity goals because the city “has had a history of being viewed as racist and noninclusive.” Boston residents may be interested to know what Harvard Medical School thinks about them – and how this flagship institution has a plan to let divisive political activism crowd out real medical education.
Harvard Medical School also has launched an “anti-racism initiative,” which embeds discriminatory ideology in student admissions, faculty advancement, and the school’s curricula. One of Harvard Medical School’s teaching hospitals, Brigham and Women’s, has announced it will use race as a factor in determining who receives access to certain medical care. Residency programs have deliberately lowered standards in the name of diversity. Professors have backed reparations as a form of “medical restitution.” Harvard has pushed “unconscious bias training” on employees and students. Numerous other examples of HMS’ embrace of divisive ideologies and practices can be found here.
Watch our recent video that discusses why this is such an important issue:
Our campaign calls these actions what they really are: Unacceptable and dangerous. And it calls on graduates, faculty, employees, and affiliates to help us draw attention to what Harvard Medical School is doing.
If you’ve seen radical ideology corrupt Harvard Medical School – or any other medical school or teaching institution – let us know immediately. We want to hear your story and help you fight back.
Do No Harm Applauds Rep. Palmer’s Fight Against Anti-Racism Plans In Healthcare
Uncategorized Alabama DEI Press Release Legislative Do No Harm StaffDo No Harm, a diverse group of physicians, healthcare professionals, medical students, patients, and policymakers working to prevent the woke takeover of our healthcare system, praised Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL) for introducing today the Prevent Racism in Medicare Act. If passed, the bill would revoke the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)’s new policy of financially rewarding doctors who adopt “anti-racism plans” that discriminate against patients on the basis of their race.
This legislation follows a recent lawsuit filed by Dr. Ralph Alvarado and Dr. Amber Colville, supported by Do No Harm, against HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Chiquita Brooks-Lasureor. The suit accuses Becerra and Brooks-Lasureor of violating the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) by creating a financial rewards system that incentivizes doctors to engage in racial discrimination.
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm, said:
“Congressman Palmer and his colleagues are protecting the American healthcare system. Their bill would stop the Biden administration’s dangerous effort to force divisive and discriminatory ideas into the doctor-patient relationship. The White House should be trying to make healthcare more accessible for all, not pushing doctors to prioritize some patients over others based on skin color. Identity politics has no place in medicine — and Congress has the right and the duty to protect us from these destructive policies.”
About Do No Harm:
Do No Harm is a non-partisan non-profit rallying physicians and patients to stop a radical, divisive takeover of healthcare. Do No Harm believes in medical fairness, equal access, and individualized treatment for every patient, without exception.
Yes, Medical Journals Are Going Woke
Uncategorized Commentary Do No Harm StaffSince Do No Harm launched in April, the biggest backers of woke healthcare have responded by denying their radical intentions – and even hiding their divisive and discriminatory actions. Now one of the most prominent medical journals, Health Affairs, is trying the same trick.
In April, our chairman, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, called out medical journals for being “complicit in the crusade” to embed identity politics and other woke ideas into healthcare. On May 15th, Health Affairs’ editor-in-chief emailed the following to Dr. Goldfarb:
This email is remarkable. It completely ignores a recent Health Affairs article authored by the editor-in-chief himself: “Tracking Author Demographics to Increase Equitable Participation.” Dr. Goldfarb reminded Mr. Weil of his piece in an email response.
The article states that Health Affairs now “require[s] authors and reviewers to respond to questions about their race, ethnicity, and gender.” It will use this information to, among other things, select “peer reviewers for certain papers and ensur[e] diversity in specific activities, including commissioned writing, events, content planning, and fellowship opportunities.”
Using race, ethnicity, and gender to commission writing, select peer reviewers, and offer fellowships is the definition of “bringing race and other nonacademic factors into the peer-review process.” Furthermore, it detracts from medical journals’ mission of publishing the best research, which is becoming a secondary goal after “diversity.”
Physicians and patients alike will suffer from the ideological corruption of medical journals. It’s disturbing that Health Affairs’ leadership has either forgotten what it’s doing or doesn’t want to admit it.
Do No Harm Is Fighting This Medical School’s Woke Mandate
Uncategorized Indiana DEI Indiana University School of Medicine Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Indiana University School of Medicine is planning to force professors to prove how woke they are. It recently proposed “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Standards” that will determine who gets promoted or tenure on the school’s faculty. These standards have nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with radical ideology.
On May 14th, Do No Harm submitted an official comment letter to IUSM’s Faculty Steering Committee, which is pushing this mandate. In the letter, our chairman, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, describes the damage this policy would do to the faculty:
He also points out this policy will lead to discrimination at IUSM:
Dr. Goldfarb concludes:
Are you a professor or student at a medical school with a similarly divisive policy? Let us know and we’ll help you fight back.
The Vast Majority Of Americans Are Not In Favor Of Woke Takeover Of Medicine
Uncategorized Press Release Do No Harm StaffFew Believe in the Efficacy of Social Justice Policies in Healthcare
A Do No Harm poll, conducted by Marist, found most Americans do not believe reducing reliance on medical entrance exams for medical school would improve care. Most believe woke hospital policies designed to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion will not improve their healthcare.
The highlights of the poll were:
“Americans reject the radical, divisive and discriminatory ideology injected into the medical profession,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman, Do No Harm. “Physicians and patients will suffer if they are force-fed such extremism. Let’s call this what it is: dangerous and un-American.”
For more information and future updates about Do No Harm, visit their website at www.donoharmmedicine.org and follow them on Twitter.
ABOUT DO NO HARM:
Do No Harm is a non-partisan non-profit rallying physicians and patients to stop a radical, divisive takeover of healthcare. Do No Harm believes in medical fairness, equal access, and individualized treatment for every patient, without exception.
Do No Harm National Survey, April 2022
This survey of 1,377 adults was conducted April 19th through April 26th, 2022 by the Marist Poll sponsored on behalf of Do No Harm. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the United States were contacted on landline or mobile numbers and interviewed by telephone using live interviewers. Survey questions were available in English or Spanish. Mobile telephone numbers were randomly selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation from Dynata. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. Mobile phones are treated as individual devices. After validation of age, personal ownership, and non-business use of the mobile phone, interviews are typically conducted with the person answering the phone. To increase coverage, this mobile sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of landline phone numbers. Within each landline household, a single respondent is selected through a random selection process to increase the representativeness of traditionally under-covered survey populations. The samples were then combined and balanced to reflect the 2019 American Community Survey 1-year estimates for age, gender, income, race, and region. Assistance was provided by Luce Research for data collection. Results are statistically significant within ±3.4 percentage points. There are 1,162 registered voters. The results for this subset are statistically significant within ±3.7 percentage points. Tables include results for subgroups to only display crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. It should be noted that although you may not see results listed for a certain group, it does not mean interviews were not completed with those individuals. It simply means the sample size is too small to report. The error margin was adjusted for sample weights and increases for cross-tabulations.
Utah Knew Its Race-Based COVID Care Was Illegal
Uncategorized Utah DEI Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe more we learn about state plans to ration medical care based on race, the more concerning it gets. A case in point is Utah. New reports prove the state knew that race-based COVID care was illegal under federal law, but it moved ahead with this discriminatory policy anyway.
Utah started heading toward race-based care after November 2020. That’s when the state’s Department of Health and Human Services tasked a “Crisis Standards of Care” workgroup with developing a plan to dole out limited supplies of COVID treatments. By February of 2021, the workgroup urged the state to make race a potentially decisive factor in determining who would get monoclonal antibodies. Under the plan, non-white patients would get extra points toward qualifying for access to these treatments.
This proposal immediately raised concerns from legal experts consulted by the state. Newly-unearthed emails show a local law professor warning the workgroup that “the use of non-white race really set off alarm bells” in light of “anti-discrimination law.” Another local law professor said the “consensus among legal academics… seems to be that it does violate federal law.”
Remarkably, the state pressed on with implementing race-based COVID care. The good news is that the threat of a lawsuit in January of this year finally caused Utah to drop the idea. But the bad news is that it ever considered discriminatory care to begin with – and stuck with the idea despite repeated and clear warnings that it was illegal. Apparently not even federal law will stop woke activists from demanding their way in healthcare.
More biased medical research into “medical racism”
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffA paper ominously titled “Structural racism is a mediator of disparities in acute myeloid leukemia outcomes” appeared in the April 7, 2022 edition of the prestigious medical journal, Blood. There are several approaches to putting a title on a medical article. The preferred path is a title that merely describes the study. This one could have been titled, “Mediators of outcome in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.” But that would not have attracted the same attention nor would it have shown the authors’ bias.
They examined the outcome of leukemia in patients from 6 medical centers between 2012 and 2018. They compared the outcomes for black, white, and Hispanic patients. Black patients had between a 50% greater risk of dying over a 3-year period than white patients. Since black patients lived in poorer neighborhoods as judged by census information, and since the authors defined racism as living in poor neighborhoods, they concluded that the racism was responsible for the disparate outcomes compared to the White patients. Hence the title.
But whenever one compares the outcomes of two groups of patients with a disease based on their skin color, the question must always be asked whether other characteristics could play an influence. In this case, there were very important differences in the nature of the disease between the two groups. Fifty percent of black patients developed their leukemia after receiving chemotherapy for a previous malignancy. For white patients, the number was 30%. Moreover, when the genetic characteristics of the leukemic cells were examined, the black patients had a higher frequency of genetic markers known to result in poor outcomes. This means the authors were comparing two very different groups of patients, beyond the patients’ race.
The authors dismiss the leukemia characteristics as not important, yet they are well known to be important. As Granfeldt Østgård et al wrote in the journal Clinical Oncology in 2015, “we find tAML (post chemotherapy leukemia) to be independently associated with increased risk of death.” The study authors ignore this reality in order to claim racism is the real cause of different outcomes.
Improving the outcomes of black patients with leukemia should be based on sound scientific and medical analysis, not unscientific and politicized claims. The real solution is more effective clinical therapeutics applied to each individual patient. Sensationalized studies such as this one do not advance the standard of medical care. All they do is advance a divisive ideology that sees racism in every aspect of American life.
The Woke Establishment Reacts To Do No Harm
Uncategorized Commentary Do No Harm StaffDo No Harm has been busy calling out the major medical institutions pushing a woke takeover of healthcare. Two of them – Harvard’s teaching hospital and the Association of American Medical Colleges – have taken offense. Now they’re trying to defend their divisive actions.
Both groups recently wrote letters to the Wall Street Journal. In response, our chairman, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, published his own letter in the Journal pointing out what these institutions aren’t telling the American people.
Regarding Harvard’s teaching hospital, Stan writes:
Regarding the Association of American Medical Colleges, Stan writes:
Stan ultimately concludes:
The Corruption of Continuing Medical Education
Uncategorized DEI Commentary Do No Harm StaffDoctors who want to keep their medical licenses must take ongoing coursework known as “Continuing Medical Education.” Yet woke activists are increasingly seeking to embed their divisive ideas in this key element of the medical community. Case in point is a new effort by the Gold Foundation and NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
The organizations have developed a series of webinars on “advancing health equity.” Doctors can obtain a Continuing Medical Education (CME) credit for each episode they watch. The whole series is steeped in activist jargon, boasting that it “uses critical humanities scholarship to educate physicians about racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice.”
Take the most recent episode, from late April, entitled “Abolition Medicine: Re-Imagining the Role of Social Justice in Healthcare.” It’s described as having “the express objective of building an anti-racist future,” while also touching on “the pandemic and police brutality.” Upcoming episodes include “Race and Racism in U.S. Medical Education” and “Drowning: Film and the Challenges of Migrant Health Ethics.”
What’s more, the project is explicitly meant to turn doctors into activists. Its creators brag about how the webinars will “promote the key function of ‘social advocacy’ in medical education.” They also say the courses will enable doctors “to similarly educate the learners whom they teach.”
This isn’t continuing medical education. It’s divisive political indoctrination. As doctors take courses to keep their licenses current, they should be learning things that help them provide better care to individual patients. The Gold-NYU collaboration does nothing of the kind.
Do No Harm Helps Doctors with Lawsuit against CMS, HHS over Medicare “anti-racism” plans
Uncategorized Washington DC DEI Press Release Executive Do No Harm StaffJackson, MS, May 5, 2022 – Today, Dr. Amber Colville from Ocean Springs, Mississippi, and Dr. Ralph Alvarado from Winchester, Kentucky, with the support of Do No Harm, filed a civil rights lawsuit against Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Xavier Becerra and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Chiquita Brooks-Lasure challenging the final rule released by CMS and HHS that enables higher compensation for doctors who adopt an “anti-racism” plan. Joining the suit are the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri and Montana.
“This is another example of a discriminatory and illegal policy advocated by the likes of Ibram X. Kendi being imposed on our health care system,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm. “These ‘anti-racism plans’ erode trust in medical professionals and will undermine the health and wellbeing of all patients.”
The lawsuit argues that the new rule violates the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) by encouraging doctors to consider race as the primary factor in care over individualized medical treatment.
As detailed in the lawsuit, Drs. Colville and Alvardo believe that racial discrimination of any kind has no place in medicine. They oppose the concepts of “anti-racism” and “equity” because they inject race-based decision making into our health care system without any medical justification. The rule penalizes them for refusing to submit one of these plans.
The case is filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Gulfport Division. Cameron T. Norris Consovoy McCarthy PLLC is lead counsel for this case.
For more information and future updates about Do No Harm, visit their website at www.donoharmmedicine.org and follow them on Twitter.
ABOUT DO NO HARM:
Do No Harm is a non-partisan non-profit rallying physicians and patients to stop a radical, divisive takeover of healthcare. Do No Harm believes in medical fairness, equal access, and individualized treatment for every patient, without exception.