Seems like in matters of perception, the person to interrogate is the one perceiving, not the object being perceived.
As Box said, "All models are wrong. Some models are useful." The current model is clearly wrong but clearly useful. You'd have to make the case that switching to your theoretically-less-wrong model would have a high ROI in terms of reducing unfair medical outcomes. But I think that's a very hard case to make.
And again, you haven't walked through the practical consequences of making this change and how it will improve fairness enough to be worth the cost of implementation. If you're serious about this, please do that. Otherwise it looks to me like you're just bikeshedding, and I don't have time for that today.
We cannot eliminate the box on the form until we first eliminate the biased care.
You are entitled, because you do not bring any facts to the table that would support your point of view, just your own opinions, nevertheless you demand "more work" from other people. If that is not entitled, I don't know what is. And the fact that you cannot see it, even after I point it out to you, speaks for itself.
That is where the article ends: “the need to monitor” etc. But there is no logic to that. The biased care is eliminated by having the care providers not care about race, not by measuring it precisely. You can still record % of people who feel discriminated without doing the discrimination yourself.
The truth is that's very hard. And if we can't measure it, it's impossible to tell which bias-reducing interventions work.
I get why white people, of which I am one, want to just ignore the problem and hope it goes away. But if there's anything that history demonstrates, it's that sustained power differentials don't just go away on their own. In the US, that's what both our Revolutionary War and our Civil War were about, as well as our civil rights movement. And things like the First Nadir and the Second Nadir show that even hard-won victories like those don't last without upkeep.