January 18, 2021
PNHP-MO chair Dr. Ed Weisbart spoke about his experience organizing physicians in support of single payer in St. Louis, across Missouri, and across the United States. Will we see Medicare for All in the near future? Dr. Weisbart sounds a hopeful note, reminding us that “every major social change has seemed impossible two years before it was accomplished.”
By Martin Luther King III
The New York Times, January 18, 2021, Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Martin Luther King Jr.: “There is nothing new about poverty. What is new is we now have the techniques and the resources to get rid of poverty. The real question is whether we have the will.”
By Don McCanne, M.D.
Over half a century later, we still have the techniques and the resources to get rid of poverty. The question still remains, “Do we have the will?”
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.
By Eve Shapiro, M.D., M.P.H.
Arizona Daily Star, Letters, January 16, 2021
In response to the writer stating that Medicare is the reason doctors are not moving to the Tucson area, let me offer a response. First, we have a shortage of primary care physicians in the US due to the high cost of medical school and the need to repay large loans (specialists make far more than primary care physicians). Second, Medicare is a very reliable payer compared to private insurance with much less hassle. Third, the bill that will be introduced in Congress again this year is an improved Medicare for All. Since everyone is included, physicians’ administrative costs will be far lower, since they are only billing one insurer, effectively increasing their incomes. Look around the world to every other developed country with a single-payer system. Doctors’ job satisfaction is significantly higher with less stress reported.
By Katherine Baicker, Ph.D.
JAMA Health Forum, January 14, 2021
The importance of access to health care and the financial protections that insurance should provide have never been more salient, and the potential consequences of the costs and gaps within the patchwork system in the US have never been more dire. Would the US population be better off with a simple, single-payer, uniform Medicare-for-all–type of insurance plan?
Trade-offs abound in policy decisions about health insurance. Although the advantages of moving to such a single-payer plan might be appealing, there are large hidden costs that must be considered.
First, having a single health insurance plan to cover the heterogeneous US population can actually make people worse off than tailoring the generosity of benefits to different people’s needs and preferences. In work I carried out with Mark Shepard, PhD, now at the Kennedy School at Harvard University, and Jonathan Skinner, PhD, at Dartmouth College, we highlight that the costs of having a uniform public insurance benefit have increased dramatically since Medicare’s advent in 1965.
One reason for the sharp increase in the costs of having a uniform public insurance benefit is the dramatic advances in health care within the last half century, with many more intensive—and costly—treatments now available. Providing all the care that might possibly be available is a much more expensive proposition now, necessitating forgoing many other things. A second reason is the substantial growth of income inequality. A person with a high income might be willing to devote resources to expensive care of only minimal health benefit, whereas a person with a lower income may need to devote those same resources to housing or education. A third reason is that, as tax rates have risen, the economic cost of raising funds to cover public insurance programs has become much larger.
All of this means that providing the same public insurance plan to everyone would leave segments of the population worse off. This could be higher-income groups, if the public benefit is limited and they are prohibited from going around it; or lower-income groups, if the benefit is comprehensive and too few resources are left to be devoted elsewhere. An alternative that might be better for everyone would be a basic public health plan available to all coupled with increased spending on other social insurance programs for lower-income groups, with the option to augment those benefits with privately purchased wraparound plans—more like the Medicaid-for-all who want it proposal.
A second factor in evaluating the costs and benefits of having a single plan is the trade-offs that are inherent to insurance plan design. Different people value different features in their health insurance, even if the overall generosity of the plan is held constant. Of course, most would prefer lower costs and broader coverage, all else being equal. Although most want the same care but at a lower price, lower cost sharing means higher premiums, whereas narrower networks can lower premiums.
Amitabh Chandra, PhD, at the Kennedy School and the Business School at Harvard University and I explored the answers given by a nationally representative survey sample about what features in a health insurance plan were most important to those surveyed, focusing on the trade-offs among elements such as lower co-payments, more expansive networks, lower premiums, and more comprehensive coverage. People were remarkably divided in their preferences about those dimensions, and given the option, they would make different choices about their insurance coverage.
The impetus for a single-payer plan is often not only the hope of reducing costs but also the goal of expanding coverage. The same survey suggests that altruistic concern for other individuals’ access to care, encouragingly, cuts across the political aisle. Faith in whether the government or the private sector is best able to effectively provide that care is much more sharply divided.
Another potential drawback of having a single plan is that competition among plans has the potential to drive down costs and accelerate innovation. This requires true competition within the insurer market, as well as among clinicians, hospitals, and other health care facilities, which is not the case in many parts of the country. There is genuine debate to be had about the potential for the introduction of a public option to increase choice and competition to promote higher value.
The costs of a single, expansive public program point to the potential benefits of giving enrollees a choice among insurance options—free or heavily subsidized for lower-income populations—to expand coverage while allowing people to make choices that reflect their priorities and drive value. There is an example along these lines in the Medicare Advantage system already in place, and most patients enrolled in Medicaid receive their insurance through privately managed plans.
None of this is meant to say that the current system is serving the US population well now. Individuals are paying more and getting less than they should—and this is particularly true for vulnerable populations. Instead, acknowledging the societal value of expanding coverage and increasing affordability, as well as the unavoidable trade-offs involved in the design of public programs, would move the country toward implementing a fiscally sustainable, high-value public insurance safety net.
Katherine Baicker, PhD, is dean of the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago.
By Don McCanne, M.D.
Are there really trade-offs in accepting single payer Medicare for All? What are the hidden costs, if any?
Katherine Baicker says that having a single plan can make people worse off because their needs and preferences are different. Needs and preferences may be different but that is why you need a single plan which can cover all reasonable needs and preferences. You often cannot predict a year in advance what the needs will be.
She states that the costs of having a uniform benefit has increased since Medicare’s advent in 1965, but essentially all costs have increased since then. That is what inflation does, though maybe there is also a disproportionate increase due to increased volume. But if those services are beneficial, we should keep them. We can afford them.
She also mentions the increase in tax rates, though Trump recently reduced tax rates for the wealthy. She says that it might be better to have a basic health plan for everybody coupled to increased spending on other social programs for lower-income groups. It is true that taxes should be progressive to pay for social programs, but that does not mean that benefits should be arbitrarily sorted out for health care coverage. All essential benefits should be included.
She states that premiums, co-payments, provider networks, and comprehensiveness of benefits could be made variable by providing different insurance coverage plans, but those are insurance gimmicks that should have no place in a universal public plan financed by progressive taxes.
She expresses concern that a single plan would forgo the benefits of competition, but that is fine since what we really want instead is cooperation.
But then she concludes with the statement, “None of this is meant to say that the current system is serving the US population well now.” That is correct, and that is why we should want a single, comprehensive program that covers everyone – a single payer, improved Medicare for All – a plan that would serve us all well.
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.
Columbia University, Irving Medical Center, January 12, 2021
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the deep fissures in our nation’s health care system, accentuating tragic disparities largely along racial and ethnic lines and highlighting the need for an immediate exploration of the underlying structural racism so that health care can become more inclusive and equitable, according to Maya Sabatello, LLB, PhD, associate professor of medical sciences in the Division of Ethics in the Department of Medical Humanities and Ethics and in the Department of Medicine at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Sabatello, an expert on human rights and the ethical, legal, and social implications of genetics, proposes a COVID-19 Truth and Reconciliation Commission. “These commissions began as a way to help authoritarian governments recover from their abusive pasts and transition toward democracy without being punitive,” Sabatello says. “The United States may not be a fragile democracy, but our health care system—who controls it, who benefits from it—resembles an autocratic regime.”
In a paper published in the American Journal of Bioethics, Sabatello and colleagues outline a forward-looking path to break the cycle of disparity and create a nationally equitable health care system.
Why do you think a Truth and Reconciliation Commission could help address the inequities exposed by the pandemic?
Truth and Reconciliation Commissions are an attempt to establish and publicly record the experiences and scale of the physical and emotional harm caused by past injustices. They help us think about the experiences of victims and perpetrators so we can develop ways to address and overcome systemic issues. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission is aimed at acknowledging wrongdoing and learning from injustices in order to move forward.
A Truth and Reconciliation Commission would allow racial and ethnic communities that have been targets of structural racism and have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic to speak up and share their experiences in a forum that aims to lead to real change. This would include Black/African American, Latinx, and Indigenous communities but should also be inclusive of other groups experiencing structural discrimination. It would also give clinicians a forum to have conversations around the systemic issues they face in providing equal care so that they can help reconstruct the system. Additionally, it’s a constructive way for administrators of health care systems and politicians to hear the perspectives and the pain that’s caused by their decisions in order to promote systemic and structural changes.
https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu…
By Maya Sabatello, Mary Jackson Scroggins, Greta Goto, Alicia Santiago, Alma McCormick, Kimberly Jacoby Morris, Christina R. Daulton, Carla L. Easter & Gwen Darien
The American Journal of Bioethics, Published online: December 19, 2020
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a substantial human, social and economic toll globally, but its impact on Black/African Americans, Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native communities in the U.S. is unconscionable. As the U.S. continues to combat the current COVID-19 cycle and prepares for future pandemics, it will be critical to learn from and rectify past and contemporary wrongs. Drawing on experiences in genomic research and intersecting areas in medical ethics, health disparities, and human rights, this article considers three key COVID-19-related issues: research to identify remedies; testing, contact tracing and surveillance; and lingering health needs and disability. It provides a pathway for the future: community engagement to develop culturally-sensitive responses to the myriad genomic/bioethical dilemmas that arise, and the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to transition the country from its contemporary state of segregation in healthcare and health outcomes into an equitable and prosperous society for all.
Conclusions
The COVID-19 pandemic gives a face to decades of segregation, racism and structural discrimination. It forces us to look to the generations of especially Blacks/AAs, Latinxs and AI/ANs that have often endured mistreatment in all aspects of life—from limited educational and employment opportunities to high levels of poverty and environmental neglect, insufficient, often absent, access to basic healthcare services, police brutality, and overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.
The opportunities for moving forward are plenty. Although the COVID-19 pandemic raises numerous questions, it intersects with other areas in which there is an abundance of knowledge that can inform the discussion. In this article, we drew on scholarship in genomics to highlight challenges that are likely to arise. These include collection, use and storage of data for research, fair and equitable access to the benefits of research, testing and surveillance concerns, and lingering healthcare needs and long-term disability among individuals, families, and communities at large. Community engagement and multi-leveled commitment will be vital for ensuring tailored and culturally sensitive approaches to assure that historical wrongs are addressed and remedied. The COVID-19 pandemic calls for self-reflection, broad public engagement and cultural humility to transform our troubled health, socioeconomic and political infrastructures into a sustainable, equitable and prosperous society for all.
Free access to the full article:
https://www.tandfonline.com…
By Don McCanne, M.D.
This is yet another article that shows how the COVID-19 pandemic has given a face to decades of segregation, racism and structural discrimination. This one is somewhat unique in that it recommends a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This, of course, would not obviate the need to enact and implement a single payer, improved Medicare for All, but it would be a great step forward.
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.
January 14, 2021
PNHP president Dr. Susan Rogers discusses how COVID-19 has laid bare the racial inequities that have always existed in U.S. health care, and how a single-payer system could begin to address those inequities. “Once you take the profit notice out,” she says, “you can put the resources where they’re needed, not where you can make money.”
Additional episodes will be uploaded twice monthly. Subscribe in iTunes, or access a complete archive of the podcast, below.
By Nishant Uppal, Parsa Erfani, and Raquel Sofia Sandoval
STAT, January 12, 2021
Targeted vaccination efforts are essential in prisons and jails, where 90 of the 100 largest Covid-19 cluster outbreaks in the United States have occurred.
The spread of Covid-19 in ICE detention centers has also been rampant. On average, the monthly rate of cases in detention was 13.4 times higher than in the general population during the first five months of the pandemic. Yet ICE has been lax in implementing Covid-19 public health measures to protect detainees.
In collaboration with Physicians for Human Rights, we recently interviewed 50 formerly detained individuals. In this evaluation, published Jan. 12, those interviewed explained how ICE failed to comply with its own Covid-19 pandemic response requirements in at least 22 of its facilities — often denying detainees consistent access to soap, masks, and proper symptom-based testing and isolation.
We believe that, first and foremost, ICE should not be detaining individuals and that individuals who are currently detained should be released. But until that happens, the vaccine rollout is an opportunity for ICE to recognize that it is accountable for the health of detainees, who are at a similar risk level for Covid-19 as incarcerated individuals. They live in crowded, congregate facilities with limited social distancing, often sleeping only 3 feet from one another, as our interviews showed. Like incarcerated individuals, ICE detainees must be prioritized for Covid-19 vaccination.
The federal government must abide by its responsibility to detained migrants and spearhead a vaccine-distribution plan for all ICE detention facilities. Only by vaccinating the people most vulnerable to Covid-19 can we move closer towards an equitable post-pandemic future.
Nishant Uppal, Parsa Erfani, and Raquel Sofia Sandoval are students at Harvard Medical School, medical evaluators at the Harvard Student Human Rights Collaborative Asylum Clinic, and research associates at the Peeler Immigration Lab at Harvard Medical School.
Physicians for Human Rights: “Praying for Hand Soap and Masks”
https://phr.org…
By Don McCanne, M.D.
The rate of active cases of COVID-19 is 13.4 times higher for these detainees than it is for the general population. These are human beings. Of course we have to make available for them COVID-19 vaccine.
It is disappointing to see that most of the comments to the STAT article were dismissive, concentrating primarily on their immigrant status. But didn’t this land belong to the Native Americans, only to be cheated out of much of it by our ancestors? Admittedly, that is a different issue from being vaccinated during a pandemic, but isn’t their immigration status primarily a matter of timing?
Fortunately these Harvard medical students understand the differences and recognize that all of us should have our medical needs met.
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.
By George Bohmfalk, M.D.
The Aspen (Colo.) Times,
Re: “Need health insurance? Mountain Family can help,” by Tamara Tormohlen, commentary, Aspen Times, Jan 7.
Ms. Tormohlen suggests that people needing affordable health insurance might find it through Connect for Health Colorado. I looked for plans posing as a 45-year-old single male making $50,000 a year. Interpreting the results boggles the mind of this old brain surgeon. I can’t imagine anyone but an insurance broker making sense of it.
The least expensive plan, after the advanced premium tax credit, has an annual premium of nearly $4,000, with a deductible of $7,500. That means that, should you need health care, you’d have to pay $11,500 before any insurance kicks in. And when insurance does kick in, it only pays a portion of the bills, and only to doctors and hospitals in the plan’s network. Very few people making $50,000 a year could afford that, which is why most personal bankruptcies and GoFundMe campaigns are due to medical bills.
In contrast, estimates suggest that, under Medicare for All, this same individual would pay under $3,000 a year, with his employer paying half of his 8% payroll tax. For less than $3,000, this person would have access to nearly every doctor and hospital in the country. There would be no deductibles, and prescription drugs, vision, dental and hearing care would be included. No shopping and plan and price comparisons would be needed, as this one-size-fits-all plan indeed would fit every American’s needs. He would pay this in taxes, so his taxes would go up, but he could easily pay those with the $4,000 he would otherwise be paying for just a private insurance premium, and have money left over.
In proposing Medicare for All, it’s not just the money that makes sense. It’s that every American would have the peace of mind and the health care they need, when they need it. No one worries about paying to have their house fire put out. We all pay for it with taxes, and the service is available 24/7. Why should we have to worry about paying to have our illnesses and injuries treated?
PNHP national board member and PNHP-California president Dr. Paul Song presented a Tuesday Talk to Doctors in Politics on January 12, 2021. He spoke about how the COVID-19 pandemic has unmasked the flaws in U.S. health care, including the glaring ineffectiveness of employer-sponsored coverage, and how the industry was spending millions to push back against the obvious solution: single-payer Medicare for All.
George Yancy interviews Eric Foner, history professor at Columbia
Truthout, January 12, 2021
What will history make of the horror and disbelief experienced by the world on January 6, when the United States Capitol was violently broken into and vandalized by Trump supporters who attempted to stop the counting of the Electoral College votes legitimately won by President-elect Joe Biden?
The painful and unforgettable events that transpired that day, leaving five people dead, not only speak to the fragility of American democracy but also reveal deeply embedded realities about white supremacy and its current and historical efforts to undermine democratic institutions and ideals.
Eric Foner: As an historian, I was particularly shocked by seeing the Confederate flag displayed in the Capitol. I can’t think of another time in history where the Confederate flag was prominently on display. Maybe there was such a moment. I don’t know. But again, that’s Trump. He has, among many other things, closely identified himself with the Confederacy, with the Confederate flag, Confederate monuments, and all that. It is pretty clear what people who carry the Confederate flag around think it says. This is not just heritage, so to speak. It’s not just respect of history. This is a symbol of white supremacy. Everybody knows that.
George Yancy: But, you know, there is a sense in which America is seen by many Americans as buttressed by a kind of theological destiny, where American “exceptionalism” speaks to a kind of unique mission and superiority that the U.S. has been bestowed. How do you think about the concept of “American exceptionalism” in relationship to the events on January 6?
Eric Foner: You know, to my mind, as a historian, American exceptionalism is the great obstacle to understanding America. It’s built into our culture. It’s very hard for us, even for those who realize how ridiculous it is, to get away from it. But it is ingrained in our culture. And it has all sorts of deleterious effects. You can start at a very simple level and say, well, “American exceptionalism” means that American history is different from other histories of other countries. Well, but that’s obvious. Chinese history is not the same as French history which is not the same as Brazilian history. So to say that different countries have different histories isn’t saying very much. But, of course, if we move up the ladder a little, American exceptionalism says more than that. It says that we have nothing to learn from the rest of the world. There’s no point in knowing about the rest of the world because we are so exceptional that what applies to them doesn’t apply to us.
This struck me years ago when Obamacare was being debated in the Congress. We’re aware that every other country has some kind of health care system, but nobody said why don’t we see what these other countries are doing. What’s going on in Germany or France or England or in Canada? They’re not all the same. They all have distinctive systems, but maybe we can learn something from their experiences. Nobody thinks we can learn anything from other people. And that’s very different from the Progressive Era a century or so ago. Americans really wanted to learn from other places about the processes of urbanization, industrialization, class conflict, which were happening all throughout the industrialized world. And American reformers and social scientists went over to Europe to see what policies were being adopted there.
A very good historian, Daniel T. Rodgers, wrote a book entitled Atlantic Crossings, which has to do with the idea of going back and forth. Now they don’t go back and forth. America tells other people what to do. Sometimes we tell them verbally. Sometimes we tell them by force of arms. Think of Iraq, for example. If you don’t want to be like us, then we’re going to force you to be, whether you want it or not.
By Don McCanne, M.D.
American exceptionalism. We can’t learn from other nations. We tell them what to do. We do not provide health care to everyone, yet we also do not listen to other nations that have done that. It is not that we do not have clear minds in people who know how to do it. A single payer improved Medicare for All would work just fine. It’s rather that we are exceptional. And what do we get for that exceptionalism?
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.
By Michelle M. Doty, Roosa S. Tikkanen, Molly FitzGerald, Katharine Fields, and Reginald D. Williams
Health Affairs, December 9, 2020
Abstract
A high-performing health care system strives to achieve universal access, affordability, high-quality care, and equity, aiming to reduce inequality in outcomes and access. Using data from the 2020 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey, we report on health status, socioeconomic risk factors, affordability, and access to primary care among US adults compared with ten other high-income countries. We highlight health experiences among lower-income adults and compare income-related disparities between lower- and higher-income adults across countries. Results indicate that among adults with lower incomes, those in the US fare relatively worse on affordability and access to primary care than those in other countries, and income-related disparities across domains are relatively greater throughout. The presence of these disparities should strengthen the resolve to find solutions to eliminate income-related inequality in affordability and primary care access.
From the Introduction
Despite decades of wide-ranging policies in the US and other countries to eliminate health inequality, income-related disparities in health outcomes and access have persisted, and in the case of the US, they have widened over time. Although the health disadvantage in the US predates the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the US health care system is under renewed scrutiny because the pandemic has exposed stark disparities in economic outcomes and mortality from the virus for socioeconomically disadvantaged people, as well as Black and Latino people, in the US. In other countries, the crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has aggravated existing challenges to access and prompted calls to strengthen the resiliency of national health systems.
For more than two decades the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy surveys have been used to benchmark US health system performance with that of other high-income countries. These studies have documented that compared with other high-income countries, the US ranks last or near last on health outcomes, access, affordability, and equity. Numerous studies have found that income-related inequality in morbidity, life expectancy, and accessibility is greater in the US than in other advanced economies. Although the US health disadvantage is well known, timely cross-national comparisons of health care experiences by income can help policy makers assess relative health system performance and guide policies that have the potential to eliminate income-related health disparities and improve health outcomes for all.
From the Discussion
Our study confirms findings from previous research that adults with lower incomes in the US were far more likely than those in the other high-income nations studied here to go without needed health care because of costs, to face medical bill burdens, and to struggle to afford basic necessities such as housing and healthy food.
Furthermore, findings indicate that income-related disparities in health status, affordability, and primary care access were most pronounced in the US, supporting other evidence that the US health disadvantage is considerable. Notably, income-related disparities in affordability and access were smallest in Germany, and only in the US were there consistently wide income disparities on all measures related to accessible primary care.
Yet these problems are not confined to the economically disadvantaged. Several studies have found that US adults with higher incomes or socioeconomic status may experience poorer health than their counterparts in peer countries. We found that higher-income adults in the US were more likely than their peers in most countries studied to forgo needed health care because of the cost. The relatively high prices Americans pay for health care, as well as the growing problem of underinsurance, fail to protect insured adults in the US from high out-of-pocket spending, leading to problems with affordability and access to care even among those with higher incomes.
Several characteristics differentiate the US health system from those in other high-income countries in this study, which may contribute to the larger income-related inequalities observed in the US.
First, the US lacks universal health coverage, which matters for population health outcomes.
Second, despite decades of research demonstrating that countries with robust primary care have greater equity, better quality, and lower per capita costs, the US underinvests in primary care.
Third, relative to most of the high-income countries in this study, the US underinvests in the upstream social determinants of health and social services that would support healthy living conditions, livelihoods, and better health for the population.
Conclusion
The US has the opportunity to commit to policy and practice changes that will make progress toward eliminating income-related health inequality, ultimately improving both outcomes and equity on a national scale. Decisive action is needed to advance policies that will improve insurance coverage, increase affordability, strengthen primary care, and increase investments that address the social determinants of health.
https://www.healthaffairs.org…
By Don McCanne, M.D.
In an ongoing series of international health policy surveys of eleven wealthy nations, the Commonwealth Fund shows, once again, that the United States ranks last or near the last on health outcomes, access, affordability, and equity, even though our health care spending is the highest per capita of all these nations.
Three factors are particularly important: 1) the U.S. lacks universal health coverage, 2) we underinvest in primary care, and 3) we underinvest in upstream social determinants of health and social services. Income inequality is a major contributor.
We can do this. We have the funds. We merely need to enact and implement a well designed, single payer, improved Medicare for all that includes attention to the social determinants of health. Why do we insist on staying with a system that costs more and yet keeps us near the bottom in performance? Our incoming president wants us at or near the top, and yet he has rejected the model that will get us there. Will there be anyone there who can teach him?
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.
By Christina Amutah, B.A., Kaliya Greenidge, Adjoa Mante, A.B., Michelle Munyikwa, Ph.D., Sanjna L. Surya, B.A., Eve Higginbotham, M.D., David S. Jones, M.D., Ph.D., Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A., Dorothy Roberts, J.D., Jennifer Tsai, M.D., M.Ed., and Jaya Aysola, M.D., D.T.M.H., M.P.H.
The New England Journal of Medicine, January 6, 2021
Conceptions of race have evolved and become more nuanced over time. Most scholars in the biologic and social sciences converge on the view that racism shapes social experiences and has biologic consequences and that race is not a meaningful scientific construct in the absence of context. Race is not a biologic category based on innate differences that produce unequal health outcomes. Rather, it is a social category that reflects the impact of unequal social experiences on health. Yet medical education and practice have not evolved to reflect these advances in understanding of the relationships among race, racism, and health. More than a decade after the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine, or NAM) issued its report Unequal Treatment, racial/ethnic disparities in the quality of care persist, and in some cases have worsened. Such inequalities stem from structural racism, macrolevel bias intrinsic in the design and operations of health care institutions, and implicit bias among physicians. The majority of U.S. physicians have an implicit bias favoring White Americans over Black Americans, and a substantial number of medical students and trainees hold false beliefs about racial differences.
These widespread problems are reflected in the fact that race is one of the most entrenched and polarizing topics in U.S. medical education. Efforts to advance health equity in medical education have ranged from implicit-bias training to supplementary curricula in structural competency, cultural humility, and antiracism. Researchers have highlighted the domains of misuse of race in medical school curricula and their potential role in propagating physician bias. In examining more than 880 lectures from 21 courses in one institution’s 18-month preclinical medical curriculum, we found five key domains in which educators misrepresent race in their discussions, interpretations of race-based data, and assessments of students’ mastery of race-based science.
Indeed, in all the authors’ home institutions we found similar misrepresentations of race.15 Social medicine or equivalent courses discuss race in a nuanced manner, but misrepresentations arise in all other courses, including organ-system blocks and basic science classes. Consideration of these five domains in the preclinical curricula (Table 1) inform our recommendations for correcting content that may reinforce or instill race-based biases (Table 2). (Use the link below to access the full article and the Tables.)
From the Recommendations
Medical education and research are intertwined and jointly responsible for perpetuating misunderstandings of race. Students carry such misinformation with them into the clinic, where their implicit biases and misconceptions perpetuate disparities in health care. We are not arguing that race is irrelevant, and our framework is not meant to trigger discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of using race in medicine; rather, we wish to provide evidence-based guidelines for defining and using race in generating and imparting medical knowledge. Race, though not a biologic concept, can be a starting point from which to generate hypotheses about environmental exposures and social processes that produce disparities in health outcomes. It is also vital to use race/ethnicity to measure and mitigate unequal treatment attributable to structural and individual implicit biases. Discussing race and naming racism are essential to promoting an antiracist culture. Rather than abandoning the use of race in medicine, we believe we should transform the way it is used, embracing a more rigorous, multidisciplinary, and evidence-based understanding of how race, racism, and race-based science contribute to inequities in health and health care.
By Don McCanne, M.D.
We all have our concepts of race and the consequences of racism, and in medicine it is particularly important to get it right, but we haven’t. The concepts presented in this article are relatively complex and cannot be communicated in brief excerpts. Thus the full article should be read and studied. Some may think that this article covers nuances of the topic, but it should be read as if these concepts represent the fundamentals.
Although this article indicates the need to introduce these concepts into the medical school curriculum, it should be obvious that those of us out in the field missed this in our training and thus would benefit, at a minimum, by the simple task of reading the full article.
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.