The Fund supports several networks of state health policymakers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis on topics important to state health policymakers, particularly on issues related to state leadership, primary care, aging, and health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a nonpartisan foundation focused on improving the health of communities and entire populations.
May 20, 2015
Christopher F. Koller
Jan 18, 2022
Jan 10, 2022
Dec 17, 2021
Back to The View from Here
State health policymakers face more work than they can handle now. Delivery system reform. Medicaid sustainability and expansion. Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation. The latest public health issue. Angry constituents. When can they collaborate with private sector leaders working on some of the same issues?
The Fund, with the help of the Network for Regional Health Improvement, recently convened teams of state staff and Regional Health Improvement Collaboratives (RHICs)—local coalitions of providers, health plans, and other stakeholders focused on improving health care—from eight states for a couple of days to share successes in collecting and reporting claims and clinical information and do some joint state-level planning.
Some great insights emerged, but the convening left me with a more fundamental conundrum: why can’t these guys be more aligned? State health policy staff are overworked and underfunded. In RHICs, state health policy leaders have powerful groups of stakeholders who are self-organized and committed to promoting largely congruent goals: improved population health, better value medical care, and a better patient experience of care. What a great opportunity for collaborations that improve health care.
Yet the underlying tenor from the teams at our convening was one of challenge: the work of aligning state and private sector health improvement efforts is hard. Participants indicated that while there are positive working relationships between state staff and RHICs, these relationships could be more productive. After all, they have so much in common—and the need for improvement is so great. What hinders productive collaboration? When I asked the participants, the answers were revealing.
State staff admitted to:
RHIC staff pointed to several things they could do to strengthen public sector partnerships:
Underlying these barriers to collaboration, however, are a few more fundamental challenges.
What’s going on? I’m not sure there is agreement in these partnerships about what their specific, common goals are. Having participated in a few of these public/private partnerships that were simultaneously trying to improve health care value, electronic health records adoption, health information exchange, health care transparency, and provider engagement, I’ve observed that staying focused is hard, especially when new revenue opportunities encourage “scope creep,” taking on new responsibilities that expand the organization’s focus and perhaps even its mission.
Goals chosen ought to be few, clear, modest (at least initially), and mutually important. If you can’t separate the partners and have them articulate common goals, chances are excellent the partnership is not going to do much.
Should I stay or should I go? Building and maintaining trust and respect among the partners is challenging in local environments with long histories, conflicting priorities, limited resources, bounded authority, and multiple roles.
State people at the convening acknowledged public processes could often be more transparent, and officials more straightforward with their private sector partners. RHIC leaders admitted to the reality of multiple agendas among their leadership and noted that private sector officials do not always appreciate the complexity of state government and the competing demands their partners face.
This convening was apparently a shot in the arm for participants. Groups from each state were grateful for the time together to reflect and plan. In the weeks after the meeting, several reported that the local dialogue had changed considerably as a result of the time away from home. The real lesson: good partnerships, like any other successful relationship, require constant attention, communication, and commitment. There is no easier way.
Get the Latest from the Milbank Memorial Fund
An endowed operating foundation that engages in nonpartisan analysis, collaboration, and communication, with an emphasis on state health policy.