Prominent healthcare watchdog groups are challenging a widely referenced study that claims racially diverse healthcare facilities lead to better outcomes for Black patients. They argue this study is being leveraged to justify race-based diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, even though it doesn’t substantiate its main claim.
Do No Harm, a nonprofit aimed at countering ideological biases in healthcare, released a report disputing the findings of the research conducted by economists Michael Frakes and Jonathan Gruber. Their study, titled “The Impact of Provider Diversity on Racial Health Disparities: Evidence from the Military,” contends that increasing the number of Black doctors in military medical facilities will enhance health outcomes for Black patients. However, it points out flaws in the methodology, noting that while the study observes changes in health outcomes when patients are shifted to facilities with differing proportions of Black physicians, it doesn’t directly assess whether Black patients receive better treatment from Black doctors compared to non-Black doctors.
The report criticizes the study for focusing on facility-level percentages of Black physicians rather than direct patient-physician racial matches. Do No Harm’s press release outlines three primary concerns: the study never actually tests if Black patients fare better when treated by Black doctors; it ignores research suggesting that Black patients benefit most from treatment by non-Black physicians in settings with a significant representation of Black doctors; and it relies on speculative claims rather than addressing other potential contributing factors.
“We cannot let politically motivated activists push outdated racial theories that don’t positively impact patient care,” said Jay Green, Do No Harm’s research director. He emphasized that the intent behind such research seems to be to solidify DEI principles, possibly reviving affirmative action and racially based employment policies. The organization calls for high-quality medical research that is free from political agendas.
Additionally, the group suggests that the new study is likely intended to influence judicial and policy discussions. Frakes and Gruber assert that their work could shape debates surrounding affirmative action in medical school admissions, depending on upcoming court rulings.
Ultimately, Do No Harm concludes that there is no scientific basis for advocating racial concordance in medical education or employment policies. They caution that advocacy groups aiming to perpetuate racial preferences in healthcare may cite Frakes and Gruber’s research in future legal and legislative contexts.
Frakes and Gruber are said to have crafted their study with this purpose in mind. However, the report argues that, despite appearing scientifically rigorous at first glance, a deeper examination of its methods and underlying motivations reveals significant flaws and a lack of credible academic integrity.
