Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Rolling Back Health Equity Training Requirements in Medical Schools Harms Us All

Medical Schools Have an Obligation to Push Back Against Federal Pressure

Opinion

Rolling Back Health Equity Training Requirements in Medical Schools Harms Us All
man sight on white microscope
Photo by Lucas Vasques on Unsplash

When my son was 4 years old, he fell off a swing at the playground. As a physician, I knew immediately that his dangling wrist was broken. I felt relieved to get him to the ER - but that relief was short-lived; the orthopedist started examining my son’s broken wrist, without giving him any pain medication. I will never forget the look of sheer agony on my son’s little face and the piercing shriek he let out. Later, I learned that not only are Black adults with fractures more likely to be undertreated for pain in the ER, but Black children, too, like my son. Pseudoscientific beliefs about racial differences in pain perception have contributed to this inequity in pain management.

In late March 2026, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), the accrediting body for U.S. medical schools, issued updated standards for 2027-2028. The requirement that medical schools ensure students “learn to recognize and appropriately address biases in themselves, in others, and in the health care delivery process” was removed. While previous standards referenced structural competence, cultural competence, biases, health inequities, and approaches to reduce them, now there is only a vague mention of “instruction and experiential learning in the factors that contribute to disparate health outcomes,” which is included within a broader systems-based practice competency.


Removing health equity training requirements for medical students is a harmful decision with negative consequences for all patients, especially those from marginalized communities. Everyone suffers when physicians lack understanding of how health inequities happen, cannot examine their own biases, and cannot develop the skills to address them, for their patients and their communities.

This rollback of LCME requirements follows an Executive Order issued in April 2025 that threatened to revoke accreditors’ authority to validate medical schools if LCME were found to have DEI-related requirements. The EO specifically targeted LCME; a month later, LCME removed Standard 3.3, which required medical schools to maintain active diversity programs and partnerships.

To competently care for patients - all patients - physicians must understand their patients’ social context and how structural factors - social and economic policies, laws, and regulations - shape the health of the patient right in front of them.

This is structural competency. It involves understanding and recognizing that zoning laws often place industrial facilities near low-income and Black and Latine communities, which increases asthma rates, and that eviction policies lead to housing instability, disrupting access to health care. Physicians who understand these structural factors can then advocate for their patients and push for policy changes to improve their patients’ health and that of their communities. Although these policies disproportionately impact marginalized communities, they affect the vast majority of Americans.

Our patients do not exist in a vacuum. A patient’s neighborhood, their job, their insurance status, access to healthy food, their exposure to environmental pollutants - all of these shape a person’s health. Lacking understanding of the effects of these upstream factors on health means that a physician is working with an incomplete picture - one where they might call a patient ‘non-compliant’, when, in fact, the patient cannot afford their medication, or must prioritize buying food over their medication because their SNAP benefits have been cut.

Even the MAHA agenda, which emphasizes clean drinking water and healthy food access, relies on understanding how policies affect access to these social determinants of health. The contradiction in this is that the Trump administration pushed 53 medical schools to expand their curriculum on nutrition while at the same time pressuring the LCME to gut a Standard that would have taught how access to clean drinking water and healthy foods are connected directly to policies and regulations - in other words, to structural factors.

This is a critical time, with access to health care for Americans eroding on multiple fronts. The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, signed into law in 2025, enacts the largest Medicaid cuts in history and eliminates coverage for at least 10 million Americans. Separately, the loss of Affordable Care Act subsidies has increased out-of-pocket premium payments in the marketplace by an average of 114% for subsidized enrollees who stayed in the same plan. The $50 billion Rural Transformation Fund, part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, will only partially offset the $137 billion in Medicaid cuts to rural areas, already reeling from hospital closures. Nearly half of US counties lack a single obstetrician, midwife, or birthing facility. As of this year, 27 states have enacted laws or policies limiting youths’ access to gender-affirming care.

Medical schools must push back. They have an obligation to train physicians who ‘do no harm’, the foundational principle of medicine. This requires graduating physicians who understand health inequities, how bias and structural factors shape them, and how to act on that knowledge for and with their patients. LCME’s removal of this requirement does not change that duty; it does not actually prohibit medical schools from teaching this content, as the April 2025 EO targets LCME, not medical schools directly. A Congressional effort to withhold federal funding from medical schools that teach diversity, equity, and inclusion - the EDUCATE Act, which has been introduced twice, once in 2024 and again in 2025 - has so far not progressed.

Medical schools can comply with federal pressure and fail their students and the patients they will one day treat, or they can commit to teaching the skills that physicians need to care for all their patients competently.

Oni Blackstock, MD, MHS, is a primary care and HIV physician, founder and executive director of Health Justice, and Public Voices Fellow for Technology in the Public Interest with the OpEd Project.


Read More

stethoscope and us dollar bills on blue-colored background.

As debate over universal health care intensifies in the United States, rising medical costs, insurance complexity, and international comparisons are fueling renewed calls for a transparent, accountable system that guarantees basic care for all Americans.

Getty Images, aaaaimages

The United States May Be the Best Place to Build Universal Health Care

The debate over health insurance in the United States has returned to the forefront as the Affordable Care Act faces political pressure, insurance premiums continue to climb, and physicians experience increasing restrictions from insurance companies. A recent poll shows that roughly 62 to 68 percent of Americans believe the government has a responsibility to ensure health care coverage for all. Yet after more than a century of debate, the federal government has taken only small steps toward universal coverage. Today, the United States spends a relatively high amount per person on health care, but Americans die younger and are less healthy than residents in other high-income countries.

Having experienced different health care systems firsthand, I am deeply aware of how universal health care can impact life. Surprisingly, I have also realized that the United States may actually have one of the systems best suited to making it work.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person at home feeling tired and stressed.

How positive male leadership is critical to the mental health and development of young men.

Getty Images, kieferpix

The Problem isn’t Masculinity – It’s the Men Modeling It

From the White House to Harvard to Buckingham Palace, 2026 has become a masterclass in how men should not behave. Donald Trump tweeted in expletives on a religious holiday, threatening to decimate “a whole civilization.” Larry Summers—one of the world's most powerful academics—resigned in disgrace from Harvard. Before that, Prince Andrew was arrested. This year alone, Bill Gates, George Mitchell, and other prominent men have been exposed for inappropriate, abusive, or generally shameful behavior.

In short, men aren't looking good right now—especially as role models for young men. Now more than ever, we need good men to step up for our boys.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reduce Barriers That Delay Care
a doctor holding a stethoscope
Photo by Nappy on Unsplash

Reduce Barriers That Delay Care

Today, administrative complexity continues to shape access to care, affecting both patients and providers. For individuals seeking timely treatment, delays and uncertainty remain common. For providers — especially community and rural hospitals — the burden of navigating these processes continues to strain already limited resources.

Prior authorization requirements are one of the most visible examples of this dynamic, and a 11% reduction in such reviews over the last year following an insurance industry pledge offers a welcome sign of progress. At a minimum, this shift suggests that some of the administrative burden embedded in the system can be reduced without compromising its core functions. But it also underscores a more persistent issue.

Keep ReadingShow less
Children sitting down, holding signs that read, "Let Trans Kids Be," and "Gender Liberation Now."

Children hold signs during a “Rise Up for Trans Youth” demonstration in New York City on February 8, 2025. Patients, families and doctors rely on medical guidance in an increasingly hostile landscape, but recent statements — and how politicians interpret them — have only deepened uncertainty.

KENA BETANCUR/AFP/Getty Images

How Gender-Affirming Care Is Becoming a Political Test for Top Medical Groups

The largest medical association in the United States supports gender-affirming care — a stance it has reiterated in different ways over the last 10 years. But as Republicans press leading medical organizations on health care for transgender youth, the American Medical Association (AMA) is the latest group caught between political rhetoric and the complex realities of specialized care that few people receive.

As patients, families and doctors navigate this care in an increasingly confusing and hostile landscape, what medical groups say matters. But lately, what they’ve had to say — and how politicians interpret it — has only caused more uncertainty.

Keep ReadingShow less