Watchdog group Do No Harm disputes study that claimed diverse medical facilities help Black patients

A distinguished medical watchdog group is pushing again towards a extensively cited examine claiming that racially numerous medical amenities enhance outcomes for Black sufferers, arguing that the analysis is getting used to justify race-based range, fairness, and inclusion (DEI) insurance policies regardless of failing to show its central declare.

Do No Hurt, a nonprofit group centered on combating ideological influences in drugs, launched a report Tuesday wherein a recent study by economists Michael Frakes and Jonathan Gruber that means growing the share of black physicians in army medical amenities results in higher outcomes for black sufferers.

The Do no hurt study disputes the findings by citing a number of flaws, together with that Frakes and Gruber’s “The Impact of Supplier Range on Racial Well being Disparities: Proof from the Army” measures adjustments in well being outcomes when sufferers are transferred to bases with completely different proportions of black physicians, however states that it by no means immediately measures whether or not black sufferers handled by black physicians fare higher than these handled by non-black physicians.

The report highlights that the authors’ design appears to be like on the shares of Black physicians on the facility stage fairly than one-to-one racial matching between sufferers and physicians.

WATCHDOG FINDS DEI, CRT IN ACCREDITATION RULES FOR HUNDREDS OF UNIVERSITY SOCIAL WORK PROGRAMS

A affected person is wheeled to the working room. (Paul Bersebach/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register through Getty Photographs)

In a press launch, Do No Hurt summarized their criticisms in three core issues with the examine: it by no means really checks whether or not black sufferers do higher when handled by black physicians, it downplays findings exhibiting that black sufferers obtain their finest outcomes when handled by non-black physicians in amenities with extra black physicians, and it depends on speculative explanations for these outcomes whereas not ruling out non-racial components that would clarify the outcomes.

“We can’t permit politically motivated activists to advance debunked racial theories that don’t have any optimistic impression on affected person care,” Jay Greene, analysis director of Do No Hurt, stated within the press launch.

“Research like these purpose to codify DEI doctrine, paving the way in which to revive affirmative motion and entrench race-based hiring. The report ignores the very query it purports to reply: whether or not Black sufferers really do higher with Black physicians. Our report systematically exposes the examine’s sloppy methodology and unfounded conclusions. Individuals of all races and backgrounds deserve high-quality medical analysis, not political ideology disguised as science.”

BLUE-STATE UNIVERSITY LEADS POLLUTION WITH ‘DECOLONIZING MEDICINE’ COURSE THAT CHALLENGES ‘WHITE BODY’ STANDARD

Physician performing surgical procedure. (iStock)

Do No Hurt argues that the brand new analysis seems supposed to affect authorized and coverage debates, noting that Frakes and Gruber themselves say their findings may form discussions about affirmative motion in medical faculty admissions amid pending court docket choices.

The Do No Hurt critique concludes that, primarily based on the proof of Frakes and Gruber, there aren’t any scientifically sound arguments for utilizing racial concordance as a rationale for sustaining racial preferences in medical schooling and hiring.

“Advocacy teams in search of to keep up racial preferences in doctor hiring will nearly actually cite the Frakes and Gruber examine in future lawsuits and legislative debates on the problem,” the report concludes.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

A whole bunch protest outdoors a rally for President Donald Trump at Macomb County Neighborhood School in Warren, MI, on April 29, 2025. (Getty Photographs/Dominic Gwinn)

See also  Controversial climate group facing bankruptcy: Here are the cases that got it here

“Frakes and Gruber intentionally produced their analysis with this objective in thoughts. However as is commonly the case with advocacy-oriented analysis, this analysis shouldn’t be a dependable foundation for making coverage choices. Frakes and Gruber’s analysis seems to be scientifically rigorous and written by economists from high-profile universities, however nearer examination of its strategies, outcomes and motivation reveal it to be scientifically flawed and an abuse of educational authority.”

Fox Information Digital reached out to Frakes and Gruber however didn’t obtain a response.