Family Medicine Educators Need to Lead on Eliminating Race-Based Medicine

Andrea K. Westby, MD

Andrea K. Westby, MD

The practice of medicine—the traditions, diagnoses, treatments, and guidelines—is ever-changing, with new research and information flowing into clinical care at a pace that rivals the turbulence and abundance of a mountain stream in the spring. We now acknowledge human papillomavirus infection as the primary driver of cervical and now oropharyngeal cancer. Hormone replacement therapy is no longer routinely recommended for postmenopausal women. Rate control is preferred over rhythm control in atrial fibrillation. Prostate cancer screening is no longer reflexively ordered for adult men.

However, as we look back at the past hundred years, our profession has been glacially slow to release the vice grip that the concept of biological race has had on our science and our medical practice.

Most of us have heard and acknowledged the truth of the concept of race as a social construct. After sequencing the human genome, we are now confident that there is 99.9% genetic concordance across races, and a person of African descent is likely to have a more genetic similarity to a white Northern European, Asian, or Latinx person than another person of African descent. While we may accept the truth of this science in theory, the way we practice and teach medicine has not embraced this truth; in fact, alternatively, we often have perpetuated the myth of race and ethnicity as markers of disease. We begin our clinical presentations with “Patient is a 54-year-old African American female…” or similar phrases, and we infuse our guidelines and supposedly objective laboratory criteria like glomerular filtration rate with assumptions about biological consequences of race. We use race as a proxy for genetics, ancestry, and biology when it is not. Jennifer Tsai, in her blog post in Scientific American, wrote, “Rather than a risk factor that predicts disease or disability because of genetic susceptibility, race is better conceptualized as a risk marker—of vulnerability, bias or systemic disadvantage.” I wholeheartedly agree.

As I started advocating for this approach to how we view and use race in medicine, I was met with resistance. I have been told that if we treat all individuals without regard to observed biological race differences, we will do people of color a disservice. I do hear this criticism. It is an important one. We can’t ignore race. Negative health outcomes by race—particularly for US-born, African-American, and indigenous peoples—are staggeringly high. What we also can’t ignore is that these disparities are not easily delineated by societally-perceived race or an inherent physiological difference marked by “race.” Based on race, how do I determine how to treat siblings with one white parent and one black parent but who appear phenotypically different—one appears externally to be white, and one black? Which GFR calculation or ASCVD risk score do I use? Which first-line blood pressure medication do I start? Does self-perceived identity or external physical appearance matter more when determining race? Do either of them matter?

Racial health disparities are sociopolitically-produced outcomes, not inherently biological ones, resulting from historical, systemic, structural, widespread racism and its health effects, not of “race” itself. To effect meaningful change on health disparities, we need to focus on sociopolitical solutions, not creating and stratifying differing biological treatments for individuals based on race.

As family medicine educators, we are perfectly poised to lead in the elimination of race-based medicine. We treat the whole person, the whole family, and the whole community, and our holistic perspective allows us to zoom in and to zoom out.

We can critically evaluate the various ways that the current practice of medicine uses race inconsistently and incorrectly. We can push our certifying body to stop using race as a qualifier in board exam questions. We can carefully question research studies and protocols about how they classify and use race, and we can challenge guidelines when they ask us to treat different patients differently because of their externally-perceived or self-identified race.

Don’t blindly accept race as a proxy for genetics, ancestry, or biology. While not biologically real, race has had actual negative biological effects through racism. And we, as family medicine educators and practitioners, as citizens of a common humanity, can make real change by tackling the systemic and structural racism that exists in our communities and in the practice of medicine. Society needs us to do this work together, for our patients, for each other, for all of us.

5 responses to “Family Medicine Educators Need to Lead on Eliminating Race-Based Medicine

  1. Thanks for your thoughts and call to change!

  2. I appreciate this reminder and call to action.
    I’m reminded of a few anecdotes that point out the need to under stand that race does not equal genetics– especially as it pertains to African-American ancestry.

    In watching Dr. Henry Louis Gate’s PBS show ‘Finding Your Roots’, he uses genetic ancestry to break down the components of people’s backgrounds. On average, research shows that black Americans have around 20% European ancestry (compared to 0% for West African black people).

    This finding is important as we tend to overlook the inefficiency of race as a proxy for genetics.

    For example, the trite associations between multiple sclerosis and European ancestry that are taught in med school could lend to us overlooking a black woman’s non-specific symptoms without probing MS because this race-based medicine.

  3. Fantastic post! I love teaching residents about the BiDil example – that it was shown to work in black people IN A TRIAL THAT INCLUDED ONLY BLACK PEOPLE AND NO COMPARISON GROUP. It worked even better at extending NitroMed’s patent on the drug for another 13 years. Charlatan science at best, which the FDA bought into, but clearly medicalized racism at the worst.

  4. This was incredibly eye opening and I appreciate your progressive and very logical approach to race-based medicine.

  5. I don’t know if I’d hang my hat on genetic ancestry testing and the percentage of heritage in these test results, but I agree with the larger point. I had a professor in college who used to say the golden rule of the social sciences is that “individual differences outweigh in-between group differences.” Which is just a different way of saying that an African man and Caucasian man are likely to have more in common genetically than two African men. Of course, it gets tricky when it comes to communicating with patients in a family medicine clinic. Here, we first have to do some work to break down the social construct in our patients mind before we can expect them to understand that race is rarely a significant consideration in their individual health.

Leave a Reply — Comments may be moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s