Virginia’s New Race-and-Healthcare Dogma

Colin Greene. Photo credit: Roanoke.com.

by James A. Bacon

It is now outside the bounds of acceptable discourse in Virginia to question the proposition that “structural” racism accounts for health disparities between racial/ethnic groups.

Virginia’s new health commissioner, Colin Greene, has been called on the carpet for expressing the view that racism is not a public health crisis and, in particular, as The Washington Post summarizes his views, for saying that he was not convinced that structural racism causes higher rates of maternal and infant mortality among African Americans.

Members of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus have declared themselves “outraged,” and members of the Virginia Board of Health have reprimanded him for publicly questioning “basic scientific facts regarding disparities.”

It did not take long for the Youngkin administration to cave. In a letter to Department of Health employees, Greene issued a groveling apology: “I am fully aware that racism at many levels is a factor in a wide range of public health outcomes and disparities across the Commonwealth and the United States.”

The science, it appears, is settled. Virginia’s political-pundit class — in this case, Black legislators, political appointees to the Board of Health, and a Washington Post essayist masquerading as a reporter — now arbitrates what the “science” says. No one is allowed to question it. With Greene’s capitulation, structural racism as a cause of health disparities  now can be considered Old Dominion dogma.

The disparity in health outcomes is real, but that may be the only thing incontrovertible about this controversy. The Post noted the widely-cited figure that the maternal mortality rate for Black women is 2.5 times that of White women. College-educated Black women are at 60% greater risk of maternal death than a White or Hispanic woman with less education.

The question is what causes the disparity. Is structural racism at play, and if it is, what are the mechanisms by which that racism is expressed? Alternatively, could other factors be responsible?

A fog of obscurity clouds the discussion. What does “structural racism” even mean in the healthcare context? Does racism occur at the institutional level — inadequate insurance coverage for African-American women, for example, or hospitals discriminating in the quality of care — or does it stem from personal biases? Are older doctors, as is sometimes alleged, more likely to overlook or dismiss health warning signs for Black mothers?

Alternatively, could the higher risk for African-American women be attributed to environmental and medical conditions that have nothing to do with bias or discrimination by hospitals and doctors? Risk factors for preterm birth include cigarette smoking, drug use, consumption of alcohol, blood pressure, diabetes, multiple abortions or miscarriages, trauma, stressful events such as domestic violence, and pregnancies at an age below 17 or after 34.

The prevalence of hypertension (high blood pressure) is significantly higher for non-Hispanic Blacks (40.3%) than for non-Hispanic Whites (27.8%). Likewise, the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes is higher for Blacks (12.1%) than for Whites (7.4%). Black women are two to three times more likely to have abortions than Whites. Teen births per 1,000 women are twice as frequent among African-Americans as among Whites, and African-American women are roughly twice as likely as White women to experience domestic violence. On the other hand, White women are significantly more likely to engage in binge drinking during pregnancy.

Greene reportedly said in a contentious meeting with VDH employees that he had not seen compelling evidence that racism was a factor in poor health outcomes for Black mothers and their babies. He didn’t deny that race was a primary factor, he just questioned it. Asked if racism accounted for the disparities, he said, “If you’re going to be intellectually honest, you start with no assumptions and then you go back and look at causes, and that’s what I want to start fresh on this.”

Under the New Rules, it is impermissible to start any such analysis with no assumptions. One must start with the operating premise that racism is the cause of disparities in health outcomes, and all discussion must flow from it.

Those who advocate the “structural racism” approach have developed a theory in the past few years to explain how social factors translate into medical risk factors: Black Americans bear a heavier “allostatic load,” the cumulative wear and tear on the body in response to chronic stress, which impacts diabetes, heart disease, blood pressure, and asthma. According to this body of thought, Blacks on average experience more stress than Whites, and the excess stress can be attributed to racism. In this view, the racism of society as a whole is responsible for the risk factors that in turn effect pregnancy outcomes.

The medical mechanisms suggested by this theory are still in the “hypothesis” stage. Also unproven is the assertion that racial differences in average stress loads can be attributed to racism, as opposed to poverty or social breakdown. But the hypothesis is widely accepted in the political-media class as medical fact, and any denial of that fact itself borders on racism. The Virginia Legislative Black Caucus letter charged that Greene’s views “signal the intentional slowing down of lifesaving policies and actions” for Black mothers.

Just what are those lifesaving policies and actions, exactly?

Should mothers (of any race) be more assiduous about not drinking and smoking, about controlling their weight, and about bringing their hypertension and diabetes under control? Do mothers bear any responsibility for their own health outcomes?

Do we need more government programs? Should we, for example, put more money into the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infant, and Children, which funds programs for supplemental food, health care referrals and nutrition education for pregnant women?

Or is the best way to attack preterm births to address supposed society-wide racism as reflected in everything from poverty to microaggressions?

Apparently, our public health officials are not allowed even to ask these questions. Greene’s job as health commissioner is to sit and listen as the arbiters of permissible thought inform him of what the “science” says. Insofar as the reported “science” is an incoherent, ideologically driven jumble, however, it does not bode well for anyone, least of all Black mothers and their babies.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

30 responses to “Virginia’s New Race-and-Healthcare Dogma”

  1. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Here’s a real medical certainty – if Younkin pushed Greene to issue that apology – Youngkin needs spinal enhancement treatments.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Or Greene needs treatment for sensitivity. Youngthing may be correct.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Of course Dr. Greene was insensitive. But so occasionally are many talented and well-meaning people. Instead of saying that, the Governor belly flopped into the pool of ill will many bear him.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Nah. He coulda used one anyway.

    3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      This would be absurd if it were not so harmful. I don’t know if the Governor believes the drivel he initially spouted on this or it caught him unawares and he spoke before he thought about it, but it was not his finest hour.

      Black patients are incontestably the worse off for a medical diagnosis of racism that has been forced on them here.

      Dr. Greene asked the right question, the scientific question. He got a political answer. Now he dare not ask the medical question again.

      Black patients cannot be treated medically for racism. That is the absurdity, and the danger to those patients.

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Poppycock! No such thing as structural racism! Now, boy, fetch my slippers, and walk the dog.

  3. CJBova Avatar

    If anyone looks at the infant mortality statistics, it’s quite clear more than racism is involved. https://apps.vdh.virginia.gov/HealthStats/stats.htm Looking at rates per thousand live births doesn’t provide a clear picture when your total numbers are low. For example, Carroll County deaths by residence, had 3 infant deaths for 2020–2 White 1 Other. The rates per thousand live births were 13 per thousand overall, 9.3 per thousand for White and 76.9 per thousand for Other race.

    What I haven’t located yet are stats for mothers with alcohol and substance abuse issues and the rate of their infant deaths.

  4. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Perhaps, one day we will learn what motivated the dude to get himself into hot water. Mere bureaucratic inexperience?

    How does any scientist not commence investigation without an assumption, often called a hypothesis? Such assumptions often begin with simple observations.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      “How does any scientist not commence investigation without an assumption, often called a hypothesis? Such assumptions often begin with simple observations.”

      Would that not be putting the cart before the horse?

      The hypothesis would be that BIPOC have a higher infant mortality rate as a result of lack of access / healthcare. The experiment would prove the cause of that, either being systematic racism or any other factor or a combination thereof.

      If your hypothesis is that BIPOC have a higher infant mortality rate because of systematic racism you’re only going to prove that it was because of systematic racism rather than any other cause.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        First of all, the investigation of such hypothesis is conducted by qualified researchers. Nor is the investigation limited to infant mortality rate. Examination of multiple lines of inquiry are necessary to test the hypothesis. Sometimes, the results do not prove the hypo but rule out other possibilities leading to focus upon the initial hypo. This is the scientific process.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          None of this has or has ever had anything to do with actual medical science.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Medical science is not insulated, immune, or ignorant of the scientific method. Opinions may be.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Denial is.

          3. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Denial is a universal truth!!! You can’t deny that canard.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Preposterous!

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      ” … he was not convinced that structural racism causes higher rates of maternal and infant mortality among African Americans.”

      Sounds like he is describing a hypothesis which he would like to test. His going in position is that he is “not convinced”. Sounds like the scientific method to me.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        May be but only in the most favorable light. His statements seem to preclude racism as a hypo especially as his words invoke the white-black matter. But, okay, maybe.

  5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Greene wasn’t questioning structural racism. He did not want to discuss “racism” at all in terms of public health. He objected to using the word “racism”. Here is what he said: “If you say ‘racism,’ you’re blaming White people. Enough of the world thinks that’s what you’re saying that you’ve lost a big piece of your audience. The fact that there are people teaching about
    Whiteness in schools in a very negative way doesn’t help.”

    Furthermore, Dr. Greene does not seem to believe that racism still exists in today’s society. As reported by the Washington Post, “In a recent interview, Greene expanded on his views, saying he associates the word “racism” with overt displays of violence, such as, “fire hoses, police dogs and Alabama sheriffs.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/15/racial-disparities-health-care-youngkin/

    There are plenty of scientific bodies that have identified racial factors, as well as structural racism, as leading to poor health: the American Public Health Association,

    https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2021/01/13/structural-racism-is-a-public-health-crisis

    and the National Institutes of Health, here–

    https://www.nih.gov/ending-structural-racism#:~:text=Structural%20racism%20has%20resulted%20in%20persistent%20health%20disparities%2C,disproportionate%20burden%20of%20morbidity%20and%20mortality%20from%20COVID-19

    and here:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306458/

    Of course, without any basis, you would label these studies as “incoherent, ideologically driven jumble.”

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      “These inequities might be explained by racism…” MIGHT. First thing I saw in the first one I looked at. Studies that reach conclusions don’t use “might.” Not science.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Read on carefully, MacDuff. The apha study is a policy analysis not a scientific inquiry. Policy analysis, i.e., developing a hypothesis, not a conclusion.

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        From the NCBI policy document:
        To investigate racism seriously as a fundamental determinant of health disparities requires attending to the multiple manifestations of racism. Structural racism operates on the macrolevel of the socioecologic framework; therefore, it more fundamentally influences outcomes than do proximal factors. To date, research has focused on the relatively narrow band that emphasizes self-reported racism and residential segregation. We encourage research on additional forms of racism, including other dimensions of social segregation, immigration policy, and the intergenerational transfer of assets and liabilities.

        1. As I wrote… structural racism is the underlying premise.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Some readers apparently don’t comprehend your analysis or refuse to accept that the entire issue concerns a premise or hypothesis. Still, Greene might have been more nuanced in his approach and words.

      3. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Wait! You do realize certainty doesn’t exist in science, right? Only in its denial is such found.

    2. I did not label the studies as an incoherent, ideologically driven jumble — although some of them might be — I’m labeling the spin on those studies by the political-media class as an incoherent, ideologically driven jumble.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        “Some of them might be!! Haner will object to that. DHS’s exposition was quite clear.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Bah! Facts!

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    All along, for some time, most of the Conservatives in BR have staunchly denied that there is such a thing as structural racism – that’s it’s a “woke” concept.

    Meanwhile a very large number of institutions, corporations and others – way beyond “black caucuses” not only say it very much does exist – they articulate it clearly:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5c670518b3d7a28a4347fc7702a1e3a641c3f8b6c2ffab37be58cd42bf4e4f2a.jpg

    https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/health-equity/what-structural-racism

    It’s not like it has not been articulated even if one is in denial, one would have to be deaf, dumb and blind as a medical person to not know of the AMA and other institutions writings about it.

    Was Greene living in a cave or he knew but just did what many Conservatives do and just deny it?

    Conservatives who say that Youngkin caved… on what? Denial?

  7. Thomas Dixon Avatar
    Thomas Dixon

    NEXT ASK GREENE WHY HE STILL ADVOCATES CLOT SHOTS FOR TODDLERS AND MASKS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES. HE IS A POLITICIAN.

  8. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    As Hupty Dumpty said, or was it the Red Queen, “verdict first, trial later.” We now live in world where conclusions are asserted and data are combed to develop a supporting theory.

Leave a Reply