This article is reprinted from National Review with the permission of the author.

Our most august medical journals are in danger of becoming more woke ideological-advocacy publications than disseminators of learned scientific studies. This is particularly true of the New England Journal of Medicine, which regularly publishes progressive gibberish pushing “equity” that is often nearly impossible to understand.

Here’s the latest example. From “Keep Your Eyes on the Prize — Focusing on Health Care Equity”:

We believe that health care–centric goals — equity in patient experience and clinical outcomes — should be the primary equity-related targets for clinicians, health care administrators, health plans, and payers. The health care sector is best positioned to improve the effectiveness and equity of the care it delivers and has the most control over these factors. To be clear, providing equitable health care includes addressing HRSNs [individual health related social needs] as part of treating illnesses shaped by structural SDOHs [structural social drivers of health]. But provision of acute and chronic care is often inequitable, with suboptimal quality, even for patients without unmet HRSNs.

The key word is “equity,” but can anyone explain what the heck that means? Speak plainly, for goodness’ sake! Oh, here it is:

Screening patients for HRSNs and referring those with such needs to indicated services can be helpful but doesn’t address underlying structural SDOHs, such as income inequality, structural racism, and a lack of robust social services; structural drivers create much of the downstream need captured in HRSN screening.

My brain is itching!

Oh, now I get what they mean:

Effective reform requires multistakeholder partnerships to identify and implement the best strategies for ensuring that funds flow to health care delivery structures, personnel, and partners that provide equitable care, support equitable outcomes, and provide a social return on investment. Value-based payment programs and alternative payment models can reward reduction of disparities. Multiple organizations have proposed health-equity measures that could be used as accountability metrics for payment programs and accreditation.

No, no I don’t.

Medicalese is one thing. Arcane lexicon certainly has its place.

But this “equity” gibberish is beyond comprehension. The best I can discern is that the authors want to reform payment systems. But I could be wrong. Read it — if you can. Your guess as to what the authors are actually proposing is as good as mine.