The Ethical and Methodological Flaws in Advocating for Racial Concordance in Health

Critical Analysis of Racial Concordance in Healthcare: Interrogating Assumptions and Methodological Rigor through the Lens of Critical Race Framework and Recent Empirical Corrections

Introduction

By Grok under the supervision of Dr. Williams

Racial concordance in healthcare, defined as the alignment of race or ethnicity between patients and healthcare providers, has emerged as a significant topic in public health research, often framed as a strategy to address persistent racial disparities in health outcomes. The concept posits that shared racial or ethnic identity between patients and providers can enhance trust, communication, and clinical outcomes, particularly for marginalized populations. However, this framing raises critical questions about its alignment with equitable healthcare goals and its potential to inadvertently reinforce racial segregation reminiscent of Jim Crow-era policies. The notion of racial concordance, while appealing in its promise to mitigate disparities, demands rigorous scrutiny to avoid perpetuating essentialist views of race or diverting attention from systemic structural issues.

Two pivotal works provide a lens for this critical interrogation. Christopher Williams’ Critical Race Framework Study (2024) introduces a novel tool to evaluate the use of racial taxonomy in health research, emphasizing the need for scientific rigor in conceptualizing and operationalizing race. Concurrently, George J. Borjas and Robert VerBruggen’s methodological critique (2024) of Greenwood et al.’s (2020) influential study on physician-patient racial concordance and newborn mortality highlights the risks of omitted variable bias, particularly the exclusion of very low birth weight (VLBW) as a key determinant of neonatal outcomes. This essay critically examines the concept of racial concordance in healthcare, drawing on Williams’ framework to question its theoretical underpinnings and Borjas’ methodological corrections to underscore the fragility of empirical claims. By situating these analyses within broader critical perspectives, including those evoking comparisons to Jim Crow segregation, the essay argues that racial concordance, while potentially beneficial in specific contexts, risks oversimplifying complex disparities and reinforcing racialized assumptions unless grounded in robust methodology and systemic reform.

Racial Concordance in Healthcare: Conceptual Foundations and Critical Concerns

The Promise and Appeal of Racial Concordance

Racial concordance has gained traction as a response to well-documented disparities in healthcare access, quality, and outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities. Studies suggest that concordance can improve patient satisfaction, trust, and adherence to medical recommendations. For instance, Greenwood et al. (2020) reported that Black newborns in Florida hospitals from 1992 to 2015 had significantly lower mortality rates when cared for by Black physicians compared to White physicians, with a regression-adjusted reduction of 0.13 percentage points in mortality probability. Similarly, Alberto et al. (2021) found that maternal-clinician ethnic concordance enhanced family-centered care for Latinx youth, improving communication and respect. These findings align with broader literature suggesting that concordance mitigates outgroup biases, enhances cultural competence, and fosters trust, particularly in communities with historical mistrust of medical systems due to systemic racism (Saha et al., 1999).

The appeal of racial concordance lies in its apparent simplicity: matching patients and providers by race or ethnicity seems to offer a direct pathway to better outcomes without requiring extensive systemic overhaul. Proponents argue that it leverages cultural familiarity and shared lived experiences to bridge communication gaps, as seen in Lopez Vera’s (2023) advocacy for linguistic and cultural concordance in addressing healthcare disparities for Spanish-speaking patients. Moreover, increasing the representation of minority providers is seen as a dual benefit, enhancing concordance while diversifying the healthcare workforce, which studies like Poma (2017) and Nguyen et al. (2022) argue improves outcomes and satisfaction for minority patients.

Critical Perspectives: Echoes of Jim Crow and Essentialist Risks

Despite its promise, the concept of racial concordance raises profound critical concerns, particularly when viewed through the lens of historical and social justice frameworks. Does promoting racial concordance inadvertently endorse a form of racial segregation in healthcare, echoing the “separate but equal” doctrine of the Jim Crow era? This critique is not merely rhetorical but rooted in the potential for concordance to reinforce racial categories as fixed, essentialist constructs, thereby perpetuating the very systems of oppression it seeks to address.

Jim Crow laws, enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, mandated racial segregation in public facilities, including hospitals, under the guise of equality but in practice upholding White supremacy and systemic inequity. Critics of racial concordance argue that prioritizing race-based matching risks replicating this logic by institutionalizing race as a primary determinant of care delivery. Such an approach could normalize the assumption that racial groups are inherently distinct in their healthcare needs or preferences, potentially undermining efforts to dismantle systemic racism in favor of superficial fixes. As Schnittker and Liang (2006) caution, the effects of concordance may reflect patient choice rather than universal benefits, and overemphasizing it could distract from addressing structural barriers like access to care or insurance coverage.

Furthermore, the essentialist risk of racial concordance lies in its potential to reify race as a biological or immutable characteristic rather than a social construct shaped by historical and systemic forces. Williams’ Critical Race Framework Study (2024) explicitly challenges this tendency, arguing that race variables in health research often lack conceptual clarity and scientific rigor, introducing measurement error and weakening study validity. By framing race as a proxy for culture, socioeconomic status, or biology without clear operational definitions, concordance studies may perpetuate flawed assumptions about racial homogeneity, ignoring within-group diversity and the complex interplay of social determinants.

Williams’ Critical Race Framework: A Tool for Interrogating Racial Taxonomy

Overview of the Critical Race Framework

Williams’ Critical Race Framework Study (2024) offers a groundbreaking approach to evaluating the use of race in public health research, addressing a significant gap in critical appraisal tools. The framework, developed through three iterative phases, assesses studies across four domains: reliability, validity, internal validity, and external validity. It posits that race, as a variable, is inherently problematic due to its poor conceptual clarity, inconsistent operationalization, and reliance on research norms rather than scientific rigor. The study recruited 30 public health experts to test the framework’s acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, finding moderate to high interrater agreement and excellent content validity, though construct validity for reliability and validity items was poor to fair.

The framework’s theoretical foundation draws on critiques of race as a social construct rooted in historical justifications for slavery and White supremacy, rather than a biologically or scientifically meaningful category (Fullilove, 1998). Williams aligns with scholars like Kaufman and Cooper (2001), who argue that race is a weak proxy for etiologic factors and introduces systematic error when used without clear justification. The framework’s application to 20 health disparities and behavioral health studies revealed low quality or no discussion of race-related methodological rigor, underscoring the need for standardized tools to challenge prevailing practices.

Critical Insights from the Framework

Williams’ framework provides several critical insights for evaluating racial concordance studies:

1. Reliability Concerns: The framework highlights the measurement error inherent in race variables, such as the assumption of racial homogeneity or the forced categorization of multiracial individuals. In concordance studies, this translates to questions about how race is assigned to patients and providers (e.g., self-identification vs. external classification) and whether these assignments consistently capture the intended constructs (e.g., cultural affinity vs. racial identity). For example, Greenwood et al. (2020) relied on physician race determined by matching identification numbers to online photos, a method prone to error and lacking validation.

2. Validity Challenges: The framework questions the validity of race as a proxy for constructs like trust or communication quality. Concordance studies often assume that shared race equates to shared cultural or experiential understanding, but Williams argues that this oversimplifies the heterogeneity within racial groups. For instance, a Black physician and Black patient may differ significantly in socioeconomic status, education, or cultural background, undermining the presumed benefits of concordance.

3. Internal Validity Threats: By emphasizing internal validity, the framework scrutinizes whether observed effects (e.g., reduced mortality in concordant pairs) can be causally attributed to racial concordance rather than confounding factors. Borjas and VerBruggen’s critique (discussed below) exemplifies this concern, showing that unaccounted variables like VLBW can bias concordance effects.

4. External Validity Limitations: The framework critiques the generalizability of race-based findings, particularly when studies fail to account for contextual factors like regional healthcare systems or temporal changes in racial dynamics. Concordance effects observed in Florida (Greenwood et al., 2020) may not apply to other states with different demographic or healthcare landscapes, limiting their policy implications.

Implications for Racial Concordance

Applying the Critical Race Framework to racial concordance reveals its methodological and conceptual vulnerabilities. The framework challenges the uncritical acceptance of race as a meaningful variable in healthcare research, urging researchers to justify its use with clear theoretical and operational definitions. For concordance, this means interrogating whether race is the most appropriate proxy for the mechanisms driving improved outcomes (e.g., trust, communication) and whether alternative variables, such as cultural competence or provider training, could achieve similar results without reinforcing racial categories. Moreover, the framework’s emphasis on systemic racism as a root cause of disparities suggests that concordance may be a palliative measure that fails to address structural issues like unequal access to quality care or economic inequities.

Borjas and VerBruggen’s Methodological Corrections: A Case Study in Omitted Variable Bias

Revisiting Greenwood et al. (2020)

Greenwood et al.’s (2020) study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was a landmark contribution to the racial concordance literature, asserting that Black newborns had a 0.13 percentage-point lower mortality rate when cared for by Black physicians, even after controlling for 65 common comorbidities, hospital fixed effects, and physician fixed effects. The study’s findings garnered significant attention, influencing policy discussions and even Supreme Court dissents, as it suggested that increasing Black physician representation could reduce neonatal mortality disparities.

However, Borjas and VerBruggen (2024) challenge these conclusions, arguing that the study’s results are heavily biased due to the omission of VLBW (birth weight <1,500 g) as a control variable. VLBW is a critical determinant of neonatal mortality, accounting for 66% of White and 81% of Black newborn deaths in 2007, yet it is spread across 30 rare ICD-9 codes, none of which were among the 65 most common comorbidities included in Greenwood et al.’s model. Using the same Florida hospital discharge data (1992–2015), Borjas and VerBruggen replicate the original findings but demonstrate that including VLBW controls reduces the concordance effect to near zero and renders it statistically insignificant in fully specified models.

Methodological Insights

Borjas and VerBruggen’s analysis employs a linear probability model to estimate the racial concordance effect, defined as the difference in mortality probability for Black newborns under Black versus White physicians. Their key findings are summarized in Table 1 of their study, which shows the concordance effect diminishing from -0.494 percentage points (unadjusted) to -0.129 in the original fully specified model, and further to -0.033 (insignificant) when a single VLBW indicator is included, and -0.014 (insignificant) with 30 VLBW-specific ICD-9 codes. The improved model fit (R² increasing to 0.366) underscores the explanatory power of VLBW.

The authors attribute this attenuation to omitted variable bias, formalized in their equations. If VLBW is excluded, the model overestimates the concordance effect because Black newborns with VLBW—who have an 80% mortality rate—are disproportionately cared for by White physicians (3.4% vs. 1.4% for Black physicians). This non-random assignment introduces a negative bias, as White physicians appear to have worse outcomes due to their higher proportion of high-risk cases, not due to racial discordance. The bias formula, derived as ( E(\hat{\alpha}_B - \hat{\alpha}_W) \approx (\alpha_B - \alpha_W) + \delta(\rho_B - \rho_W) ), shows that the differential probability of VLBW among Black newborns under White versus Black physicians ((\rho_W > \rho_B)) inflates the perceived concordance effect.

Implications for Concordance Research

Borjas and VerBruggen’s findings have profound implications for the racial concordance literature. They highlight the fragility of causal claims when key confounders are omitted, a concern echoed by Williams’ emphasis on internal validity. The study suggests that the observed benefits of concordance may be artifacts of methodological oversights rather than evidence of race-specific care quality. This challenges the policy implications of Greenwood et al., such as increasing Black physician representation or assigning Black newborns to Black providers, as these interventions may not address the root causes of mortality disparities, such as the higher incidence of VLBW among Black newborns.

Moreover, the critique underscores the need for comprehensive control variables in health disparities research. By focusing on the 65 most common comorbidities, Greenwood et al. overlooked rare but critical conditions like VLBW, which disproportionately affect Black newborns and drive mortality. This aligns with Williams’ call for rigorous variable selection and validation, as race-based analyses risk misattributing outcomes to racial factors when social or clinical determinants are inadequately modeled.

Synthesizing Critical Perspectives: Racial Concordance as a Double-Edged Sword

Reconciling Benefits and Risks

The tension between the potential benefits of racial concordance and its critical risks forms the crux of this analysis. On one hand, studies like Greenwood et al. (2020), Alberto et al. (2021), and Saha et al. (1999) provide evidence that concordance can improve outcomes in specific contexts, particularly for Black and Latinx patients facing systemic barriers. These findings resonate with patient-centered care principles, which prioritize trust and cultural alignment. On the other hand, Williams’ framework and Borjas’ critique reveal the methodological and conceptual flaws that undermine these claims, from measurement error and omitted variable bias to the reification of race as a scientific category.

The comparison to Jim Crow segregation amplifies these concerns. While concordance is framed as a voluntary, patient-driven preference, its institutionalization—through policies prioritizing race-based matching—could normalize racial separation in healthcare delivery. This risks entrenching the notion that racial groups require distinct care systems, echoing the segregated hospitals of the Jim Crow era, which were justified as meeting community needs but perpetuated inequity. Moreover, focusing on concordance may divert resources from addressing structural determinants like poverty, lack of insurance, or inadequate prenatal care, which Borjas and VerBruggen suggest are more critical to reducing Black newborn mortality.

Alternative Approaches: Beyond Racial Concordance

To move beyond the limitations of racial concordance, several alternative strategies emerge from the critical analyses:

1. Cultural Competence and Structural Interventions: Rather than relying on racial matching, healthcare systems could invest in cultural competence training for all providers, as advocated by Lopez Vera (2023). This approach addresses communication and trust without essentializing race. Additionally, systemic interventions—such as expanding access to quality prenatal care or addressing socioeconomic disparities—tackle root causes of health inequities more effectively than concordance alone.

2. Refining Methodological Rigor: Williams’ framework calls for standardized tools to evaluate race variables, ensuring they are conceptually clear and empirically justified. Concordance studies should adopt comprehensive control variables, as demonstrated by Borjas and VerBruggen, and validate race assignments to minimize measurement error. Mixed-methods approaches, combining quantitative outcomes with qualitative insights into patient experiences, could further elucidate the mechanisms driving concordance effects.

3. Community-Centered Models: Liese et al.’s (2022) Melanated Group Midwifery Care model offers a promising alternative, bundling concordance with group prenatal care, nurse navigation, and doula support to address Black maternal and neonatal disparities holistically. Such models prioritize community needs and systemic accountability over race-based matching.

4. Diversifying the Workforce with Nuance: While increasing minority provider representation is valuable, as Poma (2017) and Nguyen et al. (2022) argue, it should be pursued to enhance overall diversity and cultural competence, not solely to enable concordance. Policies should focus on mentoring and supporting underrepresented students, as Oliver et al. (2020) suggest, while avoiding the assumption that minority providers are primarily responsible for serving minority patients.

Conclusion

Racial concordance in healthcare presents a paradox: it offers potential benefits in addressing disparities but risks reinforcing racialized assumptions and diverting attention from systemic reform. Williams’ Critical Race Framework Study provides a vital tool for interrogating the use of race in health research, revealing the methodological weaknesses of concordance studies through its emphasis on reliability, validity, and causal inference. Borjas and VerBruggen’s critique of Greenwood et al. (2020) further underscores the fragility of concordance claims, demonstrating how omitted variables like VLBW can inflate perceived effects and mislead policy recommendations.

The comparison to Jim Crow segregation serves as a stark reminder of the ethical stakes involved. While concordance may improve outcomes in specific contexts, its institutionalization risks perpetuating racial essentialism and undermining the goal of equitable, integrated healthcare. By prioritizing methodological rigor, cultural competence, and structural interventions, the field can move toward a more robust and just approach to addressing health disparities. Future research should leverage tools like the Critical Race Framework to critically evaluate race-based interventions and explore alternative models that center systemic change over racial matching. Only through such critical reflection can healthcare research and practice truly advance the cause of health equity.

References

• Alberto, C. K., et al. (2021). Association of Maternal-Clinician Ethnic Concordance With Latinx Youth Receipt of Family-Centered Care. JAMA Network Open, 4(11), e2133857. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33857

• Borjas, G. J., & VerBruggen, R. (2024). Physician-patient racial concordance and newborn mortality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(39), e2409264121. doi:10.1073/pnas.2409264121

• Fullilove, M. T. (1998). Comment: Abandoning “race” as a variable in public health research—An idea whose time has come. American Journal of Public Health, 88(9), 1297–1298.

• Greenwood, B. N., et al. (2020). Physician-patient racial concordance and disparities in birthing mortality for newborns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(35), 21194–21200. doi:10.1073/pnas.1913405117

• Kaufman, J. S., & Cooper, R. S. (2001). Commentary: Considerations for Use of Racial/Ethnic Classification in Etiologic Research. American Journal of Epidemiology, 154(4), 291–298.

• Liese, K., et al. (2022). Melanated Group Midwifery Care: Centering the Voices of the Black Birthing Community. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 67(6), 696–700. doi:10.1111/jmwh.13438

• Lopez Vera, A. (2023). Enhancing Medical Spanish Education and Proficiency to Bridge Healthcare Disparities: A Comprehensive Assessment and Call to Action. Cureus, 15(11), e48512. doi:10.7759/cureus.48512

• Nguyen, B. M., et al. (2022). Black Lives Matter: Moving from passion to action in academic medical institutions. Journal of the National Medical Association, 114(2), 193–198. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2021.12.009

• Oliver, K. B., et al. (2020). Mentoring Black Men in Medicine. Academic Medicine, 95(12S), S77–S81. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000003685

• Poma, P. A. (2017). Race/Ethnicity Concordance Between Patients and Physicians. Journal of the National Medical Association, 109(1), 6–8. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2016.12.002

• Saha, S., et al. (1999). Patient-physician racial concordance and the perceived quality and use of health care. Archives of Internal Medicine, 159(9), 997–1004. doi:10.1001/archinte.159.9.997

• Schnittker, J., & Liang, K. (2006). The promise and limits of racial/ethnic concordance in physician-patient interaction. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 31(4), 811–838. doi:10.1215/03616878-2006-004

• Williams, C. (2024). The Critical Race Framework Study: Standardizing Critical Evaluation for Research Studies That Use Racial Taxonomy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.