A new report from the medical advocacy organization Do No Harm argues that political activism has increasingly shaped medical education and journal publications, raising concerns about whether future physicians are receiving adequate clinical training versus instruction in social policy issues.

The report focuses on five major medical journals and their publication patterns around so-called "social determinants of health"—factors including income level, educational attainment, immigration status, racism, and climate change that correlate with health outcomes. According to Do No Harm, these journals tripled the number of articles on social determinants of health between 2016 and 2025, rising from 69 such articles to 216.

The organization argues this shift reflects broader political priorities rather than core medical education needs. "Doctors are supposed to provide personalized medical care, so that patients can lead healthier and happier lives," wrote the report's author in an accompanying Washington Examiner column. "They are not supposed to help patients get a college degree, apply for welfare programs, or lobby for racial reparations."

The Do No Harm analysis also tracked coverage of racism as a social determinant of health, finding that such articles represented roughly 3% of social determinants content in 2019 but rose to 26% by 2022—a spike the organization links to heightened public attention following George Floyd's death in 2020. The elevated proportion has persisted six years later.

What the Right Is Saying

Do No Harm, which describes itself as fighting discrimination in medicine, argues that medical schools have shifted from clinical excellence toward political advocacy at patient expense. The organization points to programs like Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine's "Advocacy and Public Health" pathway, which includes course components described as involving "dinner meetings with physician faculty engaged in advocacy."

Senator Rand Paul has previously introduced legislation aimed at prohibiting medical schools from requiring ideological compliance, arguing that neutrality on political issues should be the standard. Conservative critics contend that time spent on social determinants content displaces instruction in anatomy, physiology, and clinical reasoning.

"Every moment a doctor spends discussing housing status is a moment they aren't discussing high blood pressure," Do No Harm's report states. "When medical schools create classes on social determinants of health, they aren't teaching future physicians as much about foundational elements of medical care."

Medical freedom advocates argue that the ideological focus creates practitioners more concerned with societal change than individual patient treatment decisions.

What the Left Is Saying

Progressive medical educators and public health advocates argue that social determinants of health represent legitimate medical science, not political activism. Dr. Camara Phyllis Jones, a former president of the American Public Health Association, has written extensively on how racism as a structural determinant affects health outcomes through mechanisms including reduced access to care, chronic stress exposure, and environmental hazards in minority communities.

Medical schools accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education are required to cover population health and prevention. The Association of American Medical Colleges states that understanding social determinants is essential for training physicians who can address health disparities affecting underserved populations.

"Recognizing how housing instability, food insecurity, and systemic barriers affect patient outcomes isn't activism—it's evidence-based medicine," said Dr. Maya McCann, a primary care physician and health equity researcher at Boston University. "Patients don't live in clinical vacuums. Their health is shaped by the conditions where they work, live, and age."

Critics of the Do No Harm report argue that declining public trust in physicians stems more from insurance complexity, cost barriers, and provider burnout than curriculum content. The American Medical Association has maintained that teaching social context helps doctors connect patients to community resources and address root causes of chronic conditions.

What the Numbers Show

Gallup polling shows public trust in the medical profession has declined significantly over recent years. A 2024 survey found approximately 51% of Americans expressing high confidence in physicians, down from peaks above 70% in earlier decades, though the profession remains among the higher-rated occupations surveyed.

Do No Harm's analysis documented that between 2016 and 2025, articles on social determinants of health rose from 69 to 216 annually across five leading journals: The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine. During this period, overall article volume in these publications remained relatively stable, meaning the proportional increase in social determinants content was not simply a reflection of expanded publication totals.

The percentage of social determinants articles addressing racism and discrimination rose from approximately 3% in 2019 to roughly 26% by 2022 according to Do No Harm's coding methodology. Medical education accreditation standards require instruction in population health but do not prescribe specific topic emphases or hour allocations for social determinants content.

United States Medical Licensing Examination scores have shown some fluctuation in recent years, though attributing score changes to curriculum content specifically remains methodologically complex and contested among researchers.

The Bottom Line

The debate over medical education priorities reflects broader tensions between clinical medicine and public health perspectives that predate current political divisions. Both sides agree that physicians should provide high-quality patient care; they disagree on whether understanding social context is essential to that mission or a distraction from it.

Accreditation bodies and licensing exams will likely continue requiring some exposure to population health concepts, meaning medical schools must determine appropriate balance between clinical fundamentals and social determinants content within fixed educational timelines. Watch for future accreditation reviews, potential congressional hearings on medical education funding conditions, and ongoing litigation over diversity requirements in healthcare settings as this debate continues to shape institutional policy.