Distributive justice in American healthcare: institutions, power, and the equitable care of patients.

The authors argue that the American healthcare system has developed in a fashion that permits and may support ongoing, widespread inequities based on poverty, race, gender, and ethnicity. Institutional structures also contribute to this problem. Analysis is based on (1) discussions of a group of experts convened by the Office of Minority Health, US Department of Health and Human Services at a conference to address healthcare disparities; and (2) review of documentation and scientific literature focused on health, health-related news, language, healthcare financing, and the law. Institutional factors contributing to inequity include the cost and financing of American healthcare, healthcare insurance principles such as mutual aid versus actuarial fairness, and institutional power. Additional causes for inequity are bias in decision making by healthcare practitioners, clinical training environments linked to abuse of patients and coworkers, healthcare provider ethnicity, and politics. Recommendations include establishment of core attributes of trust, relationship and advocacy in health systems; universal healthcare; and insurance systems based on mutual aid. In addition, monitoring of equity in health services and the development of a set of ethical principles to guide systems change and rule setting would provide a foundation for distributive justice in healthcare. Additionally, training centers should model the behaviors they seek to foster and be accountable to the communities they serve

Randomized controlled trial of a group peer mentoring model for U.S. academic medicine research faculty

Abstract Introduction:Midcareer is a critical transition point for biomedical research faculty and a common dropout point from an NIH-funded career. We report a study to assess the efficacy of a group peer mentoring program for diverse biomedical researchers in academic medicine, seeking to improve vitality, career advancement, and cross-cultural competence. Methods:We conducted a stratified randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control group involving 40 purposefully diverse early midcareer research faculty from 16 states who had a first-time NIH R01 (or equivalent) award, a K training grant, or a similar major grant. The yearlong intervention (2 to 3 days quarterly) consisted of facilitated, structured, group peer mentoring. Main study aims were to enhance faculty vitality, self-efficacy in achieving research success, career advancement, mentoring others, and cultural awareness and appreciation of diversity in the workplace. Results:Compared to the control group, the intervention group’s increased vitality did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.20), but perceived change in vitality was 1.47 standard deviations higher (D = 1.47, P = 0.03). Self-efficacy for career advancement was higher in the intervention group (D = 0.41, P = 0.05) as was self-efficacy for research (D = 0.57, P = 0.02). The intervention group also valued diversity higher (D = 0.46, P = 0.02), had higher cognitive empathy (D = 0.85, P = 0.03), higher anti-sexism/racism skills (D = 0.71, P = 0.01), and higher self-efficacy in mentoring others (D = 1.14, P = 0.007). Conclusions:The mentoring intervention resulted in meaningful change in important dimensions and skills among a national sample of diverse early midcareer biomedical faculty. This mentoring program holds promise for addressing the urgencies of sustaining faculty vitality and cross-cultural competence

Towards a Common Lexicon for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Work in Academic Medicine

Differential rewarding of work and experience has been a longtime feature of academic medicine, resulting in a series of academic disparities. These disparities have been collectively called a cultural or minority tax, and, when considered beyond academic medicine, exist across all departments, colleges, and schools of institutions of higher learning-from health sciences to disciplines located on university campuses outside of medicine and health. A shared language can provide opportunities for those who champion this work to pool resources for larger impacts across the institution. This article aims to catalog the terms used across academic medicine disciplines to establish a common language describing the inequities experienced by Black, Latinx, American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Women, and other underrepresented people as well as queer, disabled, and other historically marginalized or excluded groups. These ideas are specific to academic medicine in the United States, although many can be used in academic medicine in other countries. The terms were selected by a team of experts in equity, diversity, and inclusion, (EDI) who are considered national thought leaders in EDI and collectively have over 100 years of scholarship and experience in this area

Distributive justice in American healthcare: institutions, power, and the equitable care of patients.

The authors argue that the American healthcare system has developed in a fashion that permits and may support ongoing, widespread inequities based on poverty, race, gender, and ethnicity. Institutional structures also contribute to this problem. Analysis is based on (1) discussions of a group of experts convened by the Office of Minority Health, US Department of Health and Human Services at a conference to address healthcare disparities; and (2) review of documentation and scientific literature focused on health, health-related news, language, healthcare financing, and the law. Institutional factors contributing to inequity include the cost and financing of American healthcare, healthcare insurance principles such as mutual aid versus actuarial fairness, and institutional power. Additional causes for inequity are bias in decision making by healthcare practitioners, clinical training environments linked to abuse of patients and coworkers, healthcare provider ethnicity, and politics. Recommendations include establishment of core attributes of trust, relationship and advocacy in health systems; universal healthcare; and insurance systems based on mutual aid. In addition, monitoring of equity in health services and the development of a set of ethical principles to guide systems change and rule setting would provide a foundation for distributive justice in healthcare. Additionally, training centers should model the behaviors they seek to foster and be accountable to the communities they serve