The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
A bipartisan group of state health policymakers from both the executive and legislative branches who are focused on improving population health.
Networks of state officials, advocates, and others aiming to invest in and transform primary care.
A program dedicated to advancing state-based efforts to make health care more affordable for residents, employers, and states.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
A leadership development program for early and mid-career state government officials who are committed to improving the health of all people in their communities.
A leadership program for senior state government officials who are committed to improving population health.
The Fund focuses on creating an affordable health care system built on strong primary care and partnerships that improve health outcomes for all.
Improving state leaders’ ability to enact and implement evidence-based health policies.
Advancing policies that create a more prevention- and primary care-oriented health system.
Improving population health through policies that contain health care cost growth.
Our state health policy resources offer relevant data analysis and best practices.
The Fund publishes reports, issues briefs, and case studies on state health policy issues.
Short takes on health policy issues from Milbank staff and guest authors.
Insights from Milbank President Debra Lubar on state health policymaking.
Reported articles and Q&As on timely health policy issues, as well as foundation updates.
Milbank Memorial Fund and Milbank Quarterly webinars featuring state health policymakers and researchers.
Updates and expert contact information for reporters.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is a private foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
June 1977 (Volume 55)
Quarterly Article
Judith R. Lave
Sam Shapiro
Lester B. Lave
Myron E. Wegman
September 2026
Sep 25, 2026
Sep 23, 2026
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
As a society we cannot-and should not-rush to provide every service that offers a potential of disease prevention. Deliberate choices must be based upon careful examination of causality, efficacy, and cost. Such evaluation becomes complex when not only is a given program under consideration for results, but also is compared with similar or competing programs. The data on hand focus attention on possible gains in secondary prevention through changing “life styles,” but larger and more pervasive socioeconomic changes may be preconditions. The most difficult and consequential questions relate to tests of efficacy. Yet the most definitive research measures-randomized clinical trials-may be impossible to apply because of missed opportunities or lack of social controls. Even when “hard” findings on efficacy are available, it is a rocky course to effective implementation of preventive programs. Success will be judged not so much on how we measure prevention, but rather on what we measure. Life-saving and health-saving are not the same, and effectiveness in one area may be counterproductive in the other. But we cannot be immobilized by the imperfection of data; enough is known to aim our efforts at improving long-term research opportunities and short-term prevention.
Author(s): Judith R. Lave; Lester B. Lave; Sam Shapiro; Myron E. Wegman
Download the article
Read on JSTOR
Volume 55, Issue 2 (pages 272–314) Published in 1977