Perspective: Second-Class Medicine – Implications of Evidence-Based Medicine for Improving Minority Access to Health Care

  • Randall W. Maxey
  • Richard Allen Williams


The Promise of Evidence-Based Medicine. The spectacular ascent of medical science at the dawn of the twenty-first century trumpets a new era in US health care and great possibilities for preserving human health. At the same time, it poses serious challenges for policymakers who must make crucial decisions about the safety, efficacy, and affordability of medical technologies. One of the most difficult and contentious matters confronting decision-makers is the question of how to ensure the delivery of lifesaving technologies to low-income and minority patient populations, whereas simultaneously controlling ever-rising health-care costs. In theory, the increasingly popular concept of evidence-based medicine (EBM) suggests a potential tool for both cost containment and the reduction of severe racial and ethnic disparities in health-care delivery. Drawn from systematic reviews of studies that use rigorous research methods, particularly the randomized controlled trial, the “evidence” guiding EBM protocols informs treatment decisions made by physicians, as well as policy decisions regarding the allocation of health technologies at the population level. Operating largely out of the “average” American’s view, EBM protocols are policy devices that set the rules for who gets what medical care and on what terms. The foremost claim of some advocates of EBM is that it serves this function well by providing the best available “evidence” about therapeutic interventions, thereby enhancing the capacity of policymakers and physicians to make sound, defensible decisions. At least in theory, the use of EBM should lead invariably to rational decisions so that patients with the same illnesses and clinical indications receive appropriate interventions regardless of race or ethnicity. Again in theory, policy decisions made within EBM frameworks should lead to evenhandedness in the allocation of therapeutic interventions at the population level. Thus, EBM offers the “implicit promise of greater fairness than previously existed” (Poolsup et al., J Clin Pharm Ther 25:197–220, 2000; Taylor et al., N Engl J Med 351:2049–2057, 2004; Yancy, J Card Fail 6:183–186, 2000; Rogers, J Med Ethics 30(2):141–145, 2004).


Evidence-based medicine Cost containment Clinical trials External validity Efficacy Safety Gold standard Cherry-picking Preferred drug lists Clinical judgment Fragmentation Comparative-effectiveness research 



Special thanks to the Alliance of Minority Medical Associations and the Commission on Health, Genetics, and Human Variation. The authors acknowledge the assistance of Health Policy Analyst and Science Writer, John Sankofa, who contributed significantly to the development of this chapter.


  1. 1.
    Taylor SE, Braithwaite RL. African American health: an overview. In: Braithwaite RL, Taylor SE, editors. Health issues in the Black community. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.; 2001. p. 371.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DuBois WEB. The Philadelphia Negro: a social study. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Byrd WM, Clayton LA. An American health dilemma: a medical history of African Americans and the problem of race: beginnings to 1900, vol. 1. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Byrd WM, Clayton LA. An American health dilemma: race, medicine, health care in the United States 1900–2000, vol. 2. 1st ed. New York: Brunner-Routledge; 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson, AR. Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine National Academies Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Sullivan Commission on Diversity in the Healthcare Workforce. Missing persons: minorities in the health professions. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trivedi AN, Zaslavsky AM, Schneider EC, Ayanian JZ. Trends in the quality of care and racial disparities in medicare managed care. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(7):692–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vaccarino V, Rathore SS, Wenger NK, et al. Sex and racial differences in the management of acute myocardial infarction, 1994 through 2002. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(7):671–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jha AK, Fisher ES, Li Z, Orav EJ, Epstein AM. Racial trends in the use of major procedures among the elderly. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(7):683–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steinberg EP, Luce BR. Evidence based? Caveat emptor! Health Aff. 2005;24(1):80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gelijins AC, Brown LD, Magnell C, Ronchi E, Moskowitz AJ. Evidence, politics, and technological change. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Helfand M. Using evidence reports: progress and challenges in evidence-based decision making. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):123–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Humphreys K, Weisner C. Use of exclusion criteria in selecting research subjects and its effect on the generalisability of alcohol treatment outcome studies. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(4):588–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pablos-Mendez A, Barr RG, Shea S. Run-in periods in randomized trials: implications for the application of results in clinical practice. J Am Med Assoc. 1998;279(3):222–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wells KB. Treatment research at the crossroads: the scientific interface of clinical trials and effectiveness research. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(1):5–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Swanson GM, Bailar JC. Selection and description of cancer clinical trials participants – science or happenstance? Cancer. 2002;95(5):950–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaiser Family Foundation (2005) Fact Sheet: African Americans and HIV/AIDS Update, Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tucker WH. The science and politics of racial research. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matthews HW. Racial, ethnic and gender differences in response to medicines. Drug Metabol Drug Interact. 1995;12(2):77–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosenthal MB, Frank RG, Li Z, Epstein AM. Early experience with pay-for-performance. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294(14):1788–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Werner RM, Asch DA, Polsky D. Racial profiling: the unintended consequences of coronary artery bypass graft report cards. Circulation. 2005;111(10):1257–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eddy DM. Evidence-based medicine: a unified approach. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kerse N, Buetow S, Mainous AG, Young III G, Coster G, Arroll B. Physician-patient relationship and medication compliance: a primary care investigation. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(5):455–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bankole KK. Slavery and medicine: enslavement and medical practices in AnteBellum Louisiana. New York: Taylor & Francis; 1998.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brandon DT, Isaac LA, LaVeist TA. The legacy of Tuskegee and trust in medical care: Is tuskegee responsible for race differences in mistrust of medical care? J Natl Med Assoc. 2005;97(7):951–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fett SM. Working cures: healing, health, and power on southern slave plantations. 1st ed. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gamble VN. Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health care. In: Reverby SM, editor. Tuskegee’s truths: rethinking the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Chapel Hill, NC: Univeristy of North Carolina Press; 2000. p. 656.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Airhihenbuwa CO. Health and culture: beyond the western paradigm. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Muir Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fox DM. Evidence of evidence-based health policy: the politics of systematic reviews in coverage decisions. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):114–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Williams A. Priority setting in a needs-based system. In: Gelijns AC, editor. Medical innovations at the crossroads: technology and healthcare in an era of limits, vol. 3. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mendelson D, Carino TV. Evidence-based medicine in the United States – DeRigueur or dream deferred? Health Aff. 2005;24(1):133–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Institute of Medicine. In: Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Claxton K, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. When is evidence sufficient? A framework for making use of all available information in medical decision making and for deciding whether more is needed. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rodwin MA. The politics of evidence-based medicine. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2001;26(2):439–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gadson SL. One more river to cross – looking back, moving forward: advancing the NMA “Equality Agenda” in the era of 21st-century medicine. J Natl Med Assoc. 2005;97(10):1327–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rogers WA. Evidence based medicine and justice: a framework for looking at the impact of EBM upon vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(2):141–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. 2004. Centers for medicare and medicaid services, 2003 CMS statistics,
  40. 40.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2010: understanding and improving health. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2000.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Allen CE. 2000 presidential address: eliminating health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(7):1142–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Teutsch SM, Berger ML, Weinstein MC. Comparative effectiveness: asking the right questions, choosing the right method. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):128–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Semmes CE. Racism, health and post-industrialism: a theory of African American health. Westport, CT: Praeger Paperback; 1996.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cohen HW, Northridge ME. Getting political: racism and urban health. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(6):841–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kreiger N. Shades of difference: theoretical underpinnings of the medical controversy on Black-White differences in the United States, 1830–1870. Int J Health Serv. 1987;17(2):259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Martin DF, Maguire MG, Fine SL. Identifying and eliminating the roadblocks to comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(3):105–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Poolsup N, Li Wan Po A, Knight TL. Pharmacogenetics and psychopharmacotherapy. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2000;25:197–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Taylor AL, Ziesche S, Yancy C, et al. African American heart failure trial. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2049–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yancy CW. Heart failure in African Americans: a cardiovascular enigma. J Card Fail. 2000;6:183–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Los AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations