The piece examines a medical watchdog’s critique of a recent study that links provider racial diversity to improved outcomes for Black patients, lays out the watchdog’s specific methodological objections, shares personal experiences with healthcare quality and practitioner behavior, and questions the push for DEI policies in medicine.
A watchdog group, Do No Harm, has publicly challenged a study by economists Michael Frakes and Jonathan Gruber that claims higher shares of Black physicians at military medical facilities improve outcomes for Black patients. The watchdog contends the study’s design examines facility-level shares rather than direct patient-doctor racial matching, which is a crucial distinction for interpreting results. That distinction, the group argues, undermines the study’s policy implications about affirmative action and DEI-driven hiring. The report frames the original paper as having political motivations tied to broader debates about medical admissions and hiring practices.
Do No Harm, a nonprofit organization focused on opposing ideological influence in medicine, released a report Tuesday disputing a recent study by economists Michael Frakes and Jonathan Gruber that suggests increasing the share of Black physicians in military medical facilities leads to better outcomes for Black patients.
The Do No Harm study takes issue with the findings by alleging several flaws, including that Frakes and Gruber’s “The Effect of Provider Diversity on Racial Health Disparities: Evidence from the Military” measures changes in health outcomes when patients are transferred to bases with different proportions of Black doctors, but argues it never directly measures whether Black patients treated by Black doctors fare better than those treated by non-Black doctors.
The report stresses that the authors’ design looks at facility-level shares of Black physicians rather than one-to-one patient-doctor racial matching.
The watchdog also highlights three core problems it sees in the paper’s approach: the study does not test individual patient-doctor pairings, it minimizes results showing better outcomes for Black patients treated by non-Black doctors at facilities with more Black physicians, and it leans on speculative explanations without ruling out non-racial factors. Do No Harm argues those gaps make the study an unreliable basis for reshaping medical school admissions or hiring policies. The group warns the research could be used in courts and policy debates to support race-based measures without solid causal evidence.
Do No Harm argues that the new study appears designed to influence judicial and policy debates, noting that Frakes and Gruber themselves say their findings could shape discussions about affirmative action in medical school admissions amid pending court decisions.
The critique takes a pointed tone about the authors’ backgrounds, noting that two economists, not clinicians or epidemiologists, produced the work and suggesting that policy and resource allocation motives may have colored the analysis. That critique implies the paper might prioritize broad-system political aims over precise clinical evidence. From Do No Harm’s perspective, the report exposes methodological overreach dressed up as neutral science. Jay Greene’s quoted remarks in the watchdog’s release underscore their alarm about politically driven research shaping medical practice.
In a press release, Do No Harm summarizes their critique into three core problems with the study: it never actually tests whether Black patients fare better when treated by Black doctors, it downplays findings showing Black patients achieve their best outcomes when treated by non-Black doctors at facilities with more Black physicians, and it relies on speculative explanations for those results while failing to rule out non-racial factors that could account for the outcomes.
“We cannot allow politically motivated activists to push debunked racial theories that have no positive impact on patient care,” Jay Greene, director of research for Do No Harm, said in the press release.
“Studies like this are designed to codify DEI doctrine to pave the way for re-establishing affirmative action and enshrining race-based hiring. The report ignores the very question it purports to answer: whether black patients actually fare better with black doctors. Our report systematically exposes the study’s shoddy methodology and baseless conclusions. Americans of all races and backgrounds deserve high-quality medical research, not political ideology disguised as science.”
The author offers a personal perspective that questions the idea DEI initiatives automatically improve clinical care, drawn from long experience with various practitioners. Those anecdotes stress that care quality often hinges on attentiveness, competence, and willingness to listen rather than on demographic traits. The narrative recalls specific positive encounters with clinicians who prioritized patient-focused care over bureaucratic checklists or ideological signaling. Such firsthand accounts aim to remind readers that the human elements of medicine matter most.
Examples cited include a gynecologist remembered for empathy and clarity, and a concierge physician who stayed late to treat an injured patient and emphasized improving quality of life. Those memories are used to illustrate the contrast between attentive, patient-centered medicine and what the author describes as a growing trend toward performative professional behavior. The article suggests that when medical training and institutional incentives prioritize ideology or metrics over direct patient care, outcomes and patient trust suffer. That critique links broader cultural and administrative shifts to the erosion of individualized medical attention.
The piece concludes by warning that current trends in training and hiring, if left unchecked, will continue to shape who provides care and how care is delivered. It argues patients should be wary and persistent in seeking clinicians who demonstrate competence and compassion. The closing line emphasizes a marketplace reality: buyer beware when institutional incentives drift away from frontline patient care. Caveat emptor rules the day.
Add comment