Trump order targeting DEI in medical accreditation sparks concern

Last updated: May 1, 2025 8:44 am

ANH Team

Medical educators argue that efforts to increase diversity in the medical workforce are essential to addressing health disparities and improving patient outcomes. Research has shown that patients from underrepresented minority groups are more likely to receive appropriate care and have better health outcomes when they are treated by physicians who share their background. In addition, physicians from diverse backgrounds are more likely to practice in underserved communities, helping to address healthcare disparities.

The new executive order targeting DEI-based standards in accreditation could have far-reaching implications for medical education and training in the United States. By threatening to revoke federal recognition for accreditors that prioritize diversity initiatives, the order could disrupt the current accreditation process and open the door for new, potentially less rigorous accreditation services to enter the market.

However, critics of the order argue that diversity efforts are just one small component of the accreditation process, and that accreditation organizations already have a comprehensive set of standards that cover a wide range of topics. They point out that diversity initiatives are just one of over 300 standards required by the LCME, for example, and that there are no quotas or specific requirements that institutions must meet.

Despite these criticisms, the lack of diversity in the medical workforce remains a significant issue. Data from the AAMC shows that Black, Hispanic, and Native American physicians are significantly underrepresented in medicine, particularly in certain specialties. Efforts to increase diversity in the medical workforce are crucial to addressing healthcare disparities and improving patient outcomes.

It remains to be seen how the new executive order will impact the accreditation process for medical schools and residency programs. Medical educators and accreditation organizations are closely monitoring the situation and considering their next steps. The potential loss of federal recognition for accrediting organizations could have significant financial implications for medical schools, residency programs, and hospitals that rely on accreditation for funding and certification.

As the debate over DEI-based standards in accreditation continues, the medical community is grappling with how best to address diversity and inclusion in medical education and training. While the new executive order may shake up the accreditation process, it also presents an opportunity to reevaluate and strengthen efforts to increase diversity in the medical workforce and improve patient care.

The numbers indicating diversity in medical school admissions have not seen significant changes in recent years, according to a report published by a group of physicians called “Do No Harm.” This group has been advocating for the removal of diversity considerations from the medical school application process. Just before the issuance of an executive order, they criticized the inclusion of diversity in accreditation.

The decision to issue the executive order has raised questions, especially since the 2023 Supreme Court ruling already banned affirmative action in higher education, affecting enrollment for Black, Hispanic, and Native American students. Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority decision allowed medical schools to consider the race or background of an applicant if it is tied to a unique ability or quality of character that can contribute to the university.

Consuelo Wilkins, a senior vice president at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, expressed confusion over the administration’s actions, questioning the need for the executive order when the Supreme Court ruling is already in effect. She emphasized the importance of diversifying the medical field, pointing out that admissions based on factors like serving rural communities can still promote diversity.

Some experts believe that the executive order goes beyond diversity, suggesting that it aims to establish more lenient accreditation standards. Educational consultants may capitalize on this opportunity by setting up their own accreditation services. There are concerns that accrediting bodies like the ACGME might comply with the order, potentially hindering diversity efforts in medical education.

While the AAMC and AMA have been vocal about the need for diversity in medicine, they have not indicated whether they will challenge the executive order. The LCME and ACGME are evaluating the orders and working to provide information to the administration. University systems, such as the University of California, have expressed concerns about the potential impact on colleges and students.

Physicians are advised to be cautious about efforts to disrupt the accreditation of medical schools, as it could undermine physician self-governance and patient care. It remains to be seen how the medical community will respond to the executive order and its implications for diversity in medical education.