A recent report from Do No Harm challenges a study that has gained traction among advocates for race-based diversity initiatives in healthcare. This study, conducted by economists Michael Frakes and Jonathan Gruber, claims that increasing the number of Black physicians in military medical facilities leads to improved health outcomes for Black patients. However, Do No Harm argues that the study’s methodology and conclusions are fundamentally flawed.
The organization’s critique highlights serious concerns, notably that Frakes and Gruber do not actually demonstrate whether Black patients receive better care from Black doctors compared to their non-Black counterparts. Instead, their research focuses on the overall presence of Black physicians in various facilities without establishing a clear connection between patient outcomes and individual doctor-patient racial matches. As Do No Harm phrases it, the study simply measures the proportions of Black doctors at different bases rather than directly correlating those numbers with patient health results.
Do No Harm breaks down its critique into three central issues. First, the study fails to directly test the relationship between patient outcomes and the racial identity of the physician. Second, it downplays significant data showing that Black patients often achieve the best outcomes when treated by non-Black doctors at facilities featuring a high percentage of Black physicians. Third, the report takes issue with the speculative explanations offered by Frakes and Gruber for their findings, criticizing their lack of consideration for non-racial factors that might also influence health outcomes.
Jay Greene, Do No Harm’s director of research, addresses the broader implications of such research. He warns against allowing activists to promote what he calls “debunked racial theories” that ultimately do not enhance patient care. Greene emphasizes the importance of quality medical research over politically charged ideology, stating, “We cannot allow politically motivated activists to push debunked racial theories that have no positive impact on patient care.” He accuses the authors of the original study of evading the fundamental question at hand—whether Black patients truly benefit from being treated by Black doctors. Greene asserts that their findings are more about reinforcing diversity, equity, and inclusion doctrines than providing genuine insights into patient outcomes.
Furthermore, Do No Harm suspects that the study could influence future judicial and policy discussions regarding affirmative action in medical education. Frakes and Gruber themselves suggest that their findings may provide a foundation for arguments in favor of maintaining such race-based policies. However, the critique presents a cautionary note: despite appearing rigorous, the study’s methodology and underlying motivations raise questions about its reliability as a basis for policy decisions. “Advocacy groups wishing to maintain racial preferences in medical hiring will almost certainly cite the Frakes and Gruber study in future court cases and legislative debates about the issue,” the report states.
In essence, Do No Harm’s analysis underscores a significant concern regarding how research is employed in debates over policy, particularly when it comes to sensitive issues like race in medicine. The organization argues that science should remain distinct from ideology and that medical research must prioritize patient care above all else. The critique ultimately serves as a reminder of the importance of scrutinizing the foundations of studies that are used to justify complex societal policies, especially in an era where ideological influence is pervasive in many fields, including healthcare.
"*" indicates required fields
