Home

Poor health is costing Black Americans not only their lives but also their financial futures. Research highlighted in Rolling Out shows how chronic illnesses disproportionately affecting African Americans strip away billions in potential wealth, creating an underrecognized driver of economic inequality. Cardiovascular disease affects 60% of Black adults, a rate far above national averages. The toll is stark: Black Americans die from heart disease at rates 54% higher than whites, cutting off decades of earnings and preventing families from building generational wealth. Diabetes adds another layer of burden, with more than 12% of African Americans living with the disease compared with 7.4% of non-Hispanic whites. The costs are not limited to doctor bills—these conditions reduce energy, increase sick days, and force early retirements, depleting retirement savings meant to grow across generations. The ripple effects extend well beyond the patient. Families often see children struggle academically when parents are ill or acting as caregivers. Adult children may forgo promotions or leave jobs altogether to care for sick relatives. This cycle of diminished earning power locks entire families into economic vulnerability. The report stresses that preventive care, nutrition, and mental health support should be viewed as wealth-building strategies. Regular screenings, healthier diets, and community wellness programs could reduce costly chronic illnesses while preserving long-term earning power. As the piece concludes, investing in health is not simply a personal matter—it is a financial strategy essential to creating generational wealth in Black communities. See: “How poor health costs Black Americans billions in wealth” (August 15, 2025)

Clinicians are more likely to express doubt in the medical records of Black patients than White patients, according to a new study published in PLOS One. Researchers analyzed over 13 million electronic health records from a large health system and found that notes about non-Hispanic Black patients were significantly more likely to contain language questioning the patient’s sincerity or competence. Terms like “claims,” “insists,” or “poor historian” were flagged by artificial intelligence tools as indicators of doubt. While fewer than 1% of all notes contained such language, Black patients faced disproportionately higher odds of being described in ways that undermined their credibility. Compared to White patients, notes about Black patients were 29% more likely to contain credibility-undermining language and 50% more likely to question their competence. The study’s authors say this pattern may contribute to ongoing racial disparities in healthcare. “For years, many patients – particularly Black patients – have felt their concerns were dismissed by health professionals,” they wrote. They argue that biased documentation can stigmatize patients and affect the quality of care they receive. The researchers call for medical training that addresses unconscious bias and for AI tools used in clinical documentation to be programmed to avoid biased language. They believe their findings represent “the tip of an iceberg” and hope to raise awareness of credibility bias in healthcare. See: “Clinicians more likely to express doubt in medical records of Black patients” (August 13, 2025)

Hundreds of federally funded research projects aimed at understanding and reducing health disparities have been abruptly canceled under the Trump administration’s second term, sparking alarm among scientists and public health advocates. The National Institutes of Health terminated at least 616 projects focused on closing health gaps between racial and socioeconomic groups. Nearly half of the $913 million in canceled awards had been earmarked for disparities research, including studies on maternal mortality, chronic disease, and access to care in underserved communities.Many researchers say their work was cut not for lack of merit, but because it included terms like “race,” “gender,” or “equity.” Dr. Kemi Doll, a cancer specialist, said the message was clear: “We do not value health equity.” One study, canceled and later reinstated, aimed to train doulas to support low-income mothers postpartum. Another, still defunded, sought to understand why Black women face higher risks of adverse birth outcomes by tracking biological aging. “It’s like they erased the problem,” said Dr. Jaime Slaughter-Acey, who is now seeking donations to complete the work. Critics argue that such research benefits all Americans. Programs originally designed for Black mothers, like sending blood pressure cuffs home after delivery, improved outcomes across racial groups. While the administration claims to support “all vulnerable populations,” many fear that eliminating targeted research will widen existing health gaps. “Disparity programs ask the question: Who are we missing, and why?” said Dr. Georges Benjamin. See: “Trump Administration Scraps Research Into Health Disparities” (August 13, 2025)

A new study reveals that social determinants of health (SDOH)—such as housing instability, isolation, and economic hardship—are rarely documented in the medical records of cancer patients, despite their known impact on outcomes. Using data from over 50,000 adults with cancer, researchers found that less than 2% had any SDOH-related Z codes in their claims, even though those with Z codes had significantly higher rates of comorbidities and metastatic disease. Z codes are diagnostic codes meant to capture individual-level social challenges. Yet 54% of oncologists surveyed had never heard of them. Only 19% had used them, and many cited lack of reimbursement and unclear clinical guidance as barriers. “Physicians are more likely to document Z codes if they’re tied to payer reimbursement,” the study noted. The most common Z codes included “problems related to living alone,” “occupational exposure to dust,” and “psychosocial circumstances.” These codes were more prevalent among women and patients in states with high out-of-pocket medical costs. Despite endorsements from CMS and the American Hospital Association, Z codes remain underutilized, limiting efforts to address disparities in cancer care. Researchers stress that better documentation is essential to understanding how social risks affect treatment and survival. Without it, public health initiatives and predictive models lack the data needed to support vulnerable populations. The study calls for increased provider awareness, financial incentives, and integration of SDOH into routine care. See: “Documentation of individual-level social determinants of health among adults diagnosed with cancer in the United States” (August 12, 2025)

Parkinson’s disease affects people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, yet clinical trials and research continue to exclude many of them. According to 2023 NIH data, only 4% of Parkinson’s trial participants identified as Black, 3% as Asian, and 4% as Hispanic or Latinx—numbers far below their representation in the U.S. population. This lack of inclusion has real consequences for diagnosis, treatment, and access to care. Black Americans are more likely to be diagnosed at later stages, missing chances for early intervention. Latinx patients are less likely to see specialists trained in movement disorders. These disparities are not biological—they stem from systemic barriers in health care and research. Richard Huckabee, a young Black man, spent nearly nine years being misdiagnosed before finally learning he had Parkinson’s. His symptoms were dismissed, misattributed, and worsened by inappropriate medications. “There is no excuse,” he said, “just because I… do not fit the typical PD profile of an ‘old white male.’” The NIH’s Strategic Plan for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility offers hope, but enforcement is weak. Researchers can still receive full funding without including diverse participants or reporting who was studied. To close the gap, experts call for tying funding to accountability, engaging communities with culturally relevant outreach, and investing in proven programs like Dance for PD® in multiple languages. Without sustained funding and inclusive practices, Parkinson’s research will continue to leave behind those who need it most. See: “Closing the diversity gap in Parkinson’s research” (August 12, 2025)