Was Health Equity Just A “Hustle”? A Path Forward

Forbes - May 6th, 2025

The healthcare industry's initial fervor for health equity and DEI initiatives, sparked by the murder of George Floyd, now appears to be waning. Many organizations that once vocally supported diversity, equity, and inclusion are quietly dissolving their initiatives and distancing themselves from previous commitments. This shift raises concerns about the sincerity of these efforts and whether they were genuine attempts at reform or merely performative actions to align with a cultural moment. DEI professionals are left feeling let down, as the promised systemic changes have not materialized, and the voices that once championed these causes have grown silent.

The story highlights the crucial need for accountability and continued commitment to health equity, regardless of political or social trends. It underscores the importance of integrating equity into broader healthcare reform to address systemic issues affecting vulnerable populations. While some organizations may have treated DEI as a transient trend, the need for equitable healthcare practices persists, as disparities in health outcomes continue to impact marginalized communities. The call to action for healthcare leaders is clear: maintain a consistent focus on health equity and uphold public commitments, even when the spotlight fades, to truly embody a just and compassionate healthcare system.

George Floyd Dei Initiatives Accountability Health Equity Healthcare Industry Systemic Change

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant critique of the current state of health equity initiatives in the healthcare industry. It effectively raises awareness about the challenges these initiatives face and the potential decline in commitment from organizations. While the article is clear and engaging, it lacks specific examples and data to fully substantiate its claims, affecting its accuracy and source quality. The focus on accountability and the need for continued efforts toward health equity makes it impactful and of significant public interest. However, a more balanced perspective and greater transparency in sourcing would enhance the article's credibility and overall quality.

Accuracy

The article makes several claims about the rise and potential fall of health equity initiatives post-George Floyd. It accurately reflects the increased focus on health equity during this period, which aligns with broader societal movements. However, the claim that initiatives are being quietly discontinued and equity teams dissolved lacks specific examples or data, which makes it harder to verify. The article's assertions about performative actions in healthcare, such as press releases and appointments, are plausible but would benefit from concrete evidence or case studies to support these claims. Overall, the article provides a generally accurate portrayal of trends but lacks precise data to substantiate some of its points.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a critical perspective on the healthcare industry's commitment to health equity, suggesting that many initiatives were performative. While it acknowledges some legal and political pressures that may have influenced these changes, it largely focuses on criticizing organizations for their lack of follow-through. The article could benefit from including perspectives from healthcare organizations that may still be committed to these initiatives, providing a more balanced view. By not exploring these counter-narratives, the article risks presenting a somewhat one-sided perspective.

Clarity

The article is well-written and clearly articulates its main points about the potential decline in commitment to health equity. The language is accessible, and the structure logically progresses from discussing the initial rise of health equity initiatives to the current challenges they face. The tone is critical yet constructive, urging continued commitment to health equity goals. The article effectively communicates its message, making it easy for readers to understand the issues at hand.

Source quality

The article does not cite specific sources or data to support its claims about the discontinuation of health equity initiatives or the motivations behind them. This lack of attribution makes it difficult to assess the credibility and reliability of the information presented. Including quotes from industry experts, data from recent studies, or specific examples of organizations that have shifted their focus would enhance the article's credibility. As it stands, the article relies heavily on general observations rather than verifiable sources.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of the sources and evidence used to support its claims. It does not disclose the methodology behind its assertions or provide context for the examples it discusses. This lack of transparency makes it challenging for readers to assess the basis of the claims made. Providing more information about how conclusions were drawn or referencing specific studies or reports would improve the article's transparency.