Study on Black Infant-Mortality Was Edited to Preserve Racial ‘Perspective’

When the high-profile Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case was before the Supreme Court, the Association of American Medical Colleges submitted an amicus brief citing a 2020 study and claiming that “for high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician is tantamount to a miracle drug: it more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.” The study in question, “Physician–patient racial concordance and disparities in birthing mortality for newborns,” suggested that the mortality rates for black newborns decline significantly if they are under the care of black physicians, an outcome possibly driven by white physicians harboring “spontaneous bias.” The study stated, “Black physicians systemically outperform their colleagues when caring for Black newborns,” and the research “gives warrant for hospitals and other care organizations to invest in efforts to reduce such biases and explore their connection to institutional racism.” In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cited that brief and claimed the following: “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.”

The problem? The study was totally wrong. Worse, documents recently obtained by FOIA requests show that the researchers deliberately omitted a data point about white babies under the care of black physicians because it “undermines the narrative.”

About the Author

Abigail Anthony

Abigail Anthony is a staff writer at National Review.

Featured Tags

Manage following

Race

When the high-profile Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case was before the Supreme Court, the Association of American Medical Colleges submitted an amicus brief citing a 2020 study and claiming that “for high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician is tantamount to a miracle drug: it more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.” The study in question, “Physician–patient racial concordance and disparities in birthing mortality for newborns,” suggested that the mortality rates for black newborns decline significantly if they are under the care of black physicians, an outcome possibly driven by white physicians harboring “spontaneous bias.” The study stated, “Black physicians systemically outperform their colleagues when caring for Black newborns,” and the research “gives warrant for hospitals and other care organizations to invest in efforts to reduce such biases and explore their connection to institutional racism.” In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cited that brief and claimed the following: “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.”

The problem? The study was totally wrong. Worse, documents recently obtained by FOIA requests show that the researchers deliberately omitted a data point about white babies under the care of black physicians because it “undermines the narrative.”