Latest

In a first, a new article “Overcoming the Impact of Students for Fair Admission v Harvard to Build a More Representative Health Care Workforce: Perspectives from Ending Unequal Treatment” (Millbank Quarterly) shows how a less representative health care workforce — an impact of the Supreme Court of the United States’s decision that banned race‐conscious college admissions — is bad for America’s health.

“When health care providers are more representative of the populations they serve, the health outcomes are better for everyone. This means that when decisions get in the way of a more representative workforce, everyone’s health is negatively impacted,” said the lead author Prof. Vincent Guilamo-Ramos PhD RN, executive director of the Institute for Policy Solutions at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing. “The good news is we can help reverse this damage by redoubling our efforts to recruit and train underrepresented health professionals.”

The article points to action levers that will change the picture:

Exempt health professions education programs from the SCOTUS restrictions. This would limit the damage of the SCOTUS decision. It would also positively impact federal policy actions and vital programs that promote a representative workforce. Similarly, state-based initiatives could flourish.

Increase targeted funding. Loan Repayment Programs, Service‐Contingent Scholarship Programs and Pathway Programs improve workforce representativeness if they are specifically targeted to underrepresented entrants. More investment would improve results.

Institutes of higher education can do more.  Higher education can further embrace, scaleup, and fund more programs and institutional partnerships to supercharge a more representative and diverse student body and faculty.

“Respectfully, we invite everyone (and especially Supreme Court Justices) to think about your health in new ways. Know that when health care is representative, it makes us all healthier,” Guilamo-Ramos said.