PurposeThe transition from medical school to residency is a critical step in the careers of physicians. Because of the standardized application process-wherein schools submit summative Medical Student Performance Evaluations (MSPE's)-it also represents a unique opportunity to assess the possible prevalence of racial and gender disparities, as shown elsewhere in medicine.

While much of the social and political attention surrounding the nationwide opioid epidemic has focused on the dramatic increase in overdose deaths among white, middle-class, suburban and rural users, the impact of the epidemic in Black communities has largely been unrecognized. Though rates of opioid use at the national scale are higher for whites than they are for Blacks, rates of increase in opioid deaths have been rising more steeply among Blacks (43%) than whites (22%) over the last five years. Moreover, the rate of opioid overdose deaths among Blacks already exceeds that of whites in several states. The lack of discussion of Black overdose deaths in the national opioid discourse further marginalizes Black people, and is highly consistent with a history of framing the addictions of people of color as deserving of criminal punishment, rather than worthy of medical treatment. This article argues that, because racial inequalities are embedded in American popular and political cultures as well as in medicine, the federal and state governments should develop more culturally targeted programs to benefit Black communities in the opioid crisis. Such programs include the use of faith-based organizations to deliver substance use prevention and treatment services, the inclusion of racial impact assessments in the implementation of drug policy proposals, and the formal consideration of Black people's interaction with the criminal justice system in designing treatment options.

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

Health inequities stem from systematic, pervasive social and structural forces. These forces marginalize populations and create the circumstances that disadvantage these groups, as reflected in differences in outcomes like life expectancy and infant mortality and in inequitable access to and delivery of health care resources. To help eradicate these inequities, physicians must understand racism, sexism, oppression, historical marginalization, power, privilege, and other sociopolitical and economic forces that sustain and create inequities. A new educational paradigm emphasizing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to achieve health equity is needed. Systems-based practice is the graduate medical education core competency that focuses on complex systems and physicians’ roles within them; it includes topics like multidisciplinary team-based care, patient safety, cost containment, end-of-life goals, and quality improvement. This competency, however, is largely health care centric and does not train physicians to engage with the complexities of the social and structural determinants of health or to partner with systems and communities that are outside health care. The authors propose a new core competency centered on health equity, social responsibility, and structural competency to address this gap in graduate medical education. For the development of this new competency, the authors draw on existing, innovative undergraduate and graduate medical pedagogy and public health, health services research, and social medicine frameworks. They describe how this new competency would inform graduate medical education and clinical care and encourage future physicians to engage in the work of health equity.