Medical watchdog challenges key study used to justify DEI health policies: ‘Scientifically unsound’ A medical watchdog group, Do No Harm, is challenging a study by Michael Frakes and Jonathan Gruber that suggests increased Black physician representation in military medical facilities improves outcomes for Black patients. Do No Harm argues the study fails to directly test if Black patients fare better with Black doctors and relies on speculative explanations, potentially paving the way for race-based hiring policies. They conclude the Frakes and Gruber study lacks scientific support for using racial concordance to justify racial preferences in medical education and hiring.

• Do No Harm disputes a study claiming racially diverse medical facilities improve outcomes for Black patients.
• The watchdog group argues the study is used to justify race-based Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies.
• Do No Harm alleges the study does not directly measure if Black patients treated by Black doctors fare better.
• The study examines facility-level shares of Black physicians rather than one-to-one patient-doctor matching.
• Do No Harm claims the study downplays findings where Black patients have their best outcomes with non-Black doctors.
• The group suggests the study is designed to influence judicial and policy debates on affirmative action.
• Do No Harm concludes there is no scientifically supported case for using racial concordance to justify racial preferences in medical hiring and education based on this study.