Rethinking Population Health Through Place-Based Targeted Universalism

Public health has become remarkably good at mapping geographic disparities in health. Color-coded maps of infant mortality, childhood lead exposure, asthma, and life expectancy consistently reveal the same pattern: poor health is not randomly distributed across individuals. It clusters in neighborhoods, cities, counties, and states shaped by decades of housing, economic, and environmental policies.

Historic and structural forces determine who is able to live where, concentrating disadvantage through segregation, exclusionary housing policies, economic disinvestment, environmental injustice, and displacement. Those same forces create the conditions within those places—including access to health care, healthy food, transportation, safe housing, clean air and water, employment, and education, as well as exposure to chronic stress, financial insecurity, and unequal opportunity. These conditions accumulate across the life course and generations to produce measurable differences in health, which are then reflected in those color-coded maps.

Communities are more than collections of individuals. A pregnant person in a community with high rates of housing instability may face greater stress throughout pregnancy, and a higher risk of preterm birth, even if she herself never faces eviction. A family with stable housing and reliable transportation may still live in a neighborhood with few health care providers or aging infrastructure. These are community conditions, not individual characteristics, that impact health outcomes.

Yet, our health-improving solutions remain focused largely on individuals. Most programs begin by identifying who is highest risk or most in need. We ask who qualifies, who is poor enough, who is sick enough, who meets increasingly complex eligibility criteria. Too often, that individual focus doubles as an indictment of individual behavior: we blame the poor and the sick for their own conditions. The quiet assumption is that if someone ate better, cleaned the lead dust from their window sills, or exercised more, the risk would simply recede. That framing overlooks the fact that many of the inequities we seek to reduce are rooted in the history and geography of places, not personal choices. If inequities are geographic, interventions designed to reach only selected individuals should not be expected to transform the health of entire communities.

Place-based targeted universalism offers a different starting point: rather than targeting individuals, it targets communities experiencing the greatest inequities, while making benefits universally available within those communities.

This design combines the broad participation, simplicity, and dignity of universal benefits with the equity and efficient resource allocation of geographically targeted investment. Instead of asking families to prove they are sufficiently poor or vulnerable, it recognizes that place is the cumulative expression of decades of housing, transportation, environmental, education, and health care policy—and if policy and programs helped create these inequities, smart policy and programs can also reduce them.

Maternal and infant health offers a natural proving ground for this approach. Preterm birth, infant mortality, and maternal morbidity rates are sharply patterned by geography, varying dramatically from one neighborhood to the next.^1,2 If place-based targeted universalism can change population health anywhere, it should be able to change it here.

Intentionally designed as a population health intervention, Rx Kids is the nation’s first community-wide prenatal and infant cash prescription program, providing $1500 as no-strings-attached cash during mid-pregnancy and $500 per month during infancy. Rather than identifying eligible individuals, the program identifies communities experiencing disproportionately poor maternal and infant health outcomes and invests in every eligible pregnant family living within them. In effect, communities—not individuals—are means tested. By reaching nearly every pregnant family in participating communities, Rx Kids minimizes administrative barriers, normalizes participation, reduces stigma, and achieves extraordinary reach. Families are not asked to prove they are poor or vulnerable enough; they participate because they live in a community collectively identified for investment.

Designing interventions for populations also changes the kinds of scientific questions we can ask. Most evaluations of social programs examine whether participants fare better than nonparticipants: did the intervention improve the lives of the people who received it? Place-based targeted universalism allows us to ask a broader question: did an entire community become healthier?

Emerging evidence from Rx Kids suggests that place-based interventions can lead to population-wide improvements in health. Following implementation of Rx Kids in Flint, Michigan, the first Rx Kids community, population-level prenatal care utilization increased while rates of preterm birth and low birth weight declined. Maternal mental health improved,^3,4 and involvement with the child welfare system decreased. Early findings also suggest reductions in neonatal mortality, one of the most stubborn indicators in maternal and child health. Perhaps most importantly, longstanding disparities between Flint and the rest of Michigan are beginning to narrow.^5-8

Because Rx Kids reaches entire birth cohorts within participating communities, its effects can be evaluated at the population level—not only among program participants, but across an entire community’s birth outcomes, maternal health, and child well-being.^3-8 This distinction matters for interpretation and replicability: the emerging evidence from Rx Kids should not be assumed to apply to more narrowly targeted programs. Its effects likely arise not only from the direct benefits received by individual families but from its community-wide reach. Near-universal participation creates spillover effects that cannot be captured when only a subset of residents receives support. Parents experience the program as a shared community investment rather than an individually earned benefit—reducing stigma, strengthening social cohesion, and reinforcing community norms around pregnancy, infancy, and collective responsibility. These dynamics are unlikely to emerge from programs with limited reach, even when the financial benefit provided to recipients is identical.

These findings represent more than successful program outcomes. Public health has historically excelled at documenting disparities while producing relatively few interventions capable of shifting population-level outcomes. Many programs improve the health of individual participants, but comparatively few measurably improve the health of entire communities. Yet, reducing disparities between communities—not simply improving outcomes among selected individuals—is the central objective of population health.

Place-based targeted universalism changes more than program design and scientific evaluation; it also changes what is communicated. Every investment sends a message about who belongs and what society owes each member. Means-tested and individually targeted programs often begin from a premise of deficit and verification: families must document their income, repeatedly demonstrate eligibility, and prove they qualify for assistance. These safeguards are intended to steward public resources, but they can also create administrative barriers, reinforce stigma, and communicate suspicion.

Place-based targeted universalism begins from a different premise—one of trust, dignity, and love; blame shifts from the individual to the geography. By making benefits available to every eligible family within a community selected for investment, it avoids dividing neighbors by arbitrary income thresholds while recognizing that families in the same place often share the same structural barriers and opportunities. It affirms that every baby born into a community is welcomed and valued. Participation becomes a shared community experience rather than a marker of economic hardship. It is also administratively lean in a way few safety-net programs are. With minimal casework staff needed to adjudicate who is in and who is out, family by family, the bureaucracy shrinks along with the cost, and eligibility is easy enough to understand that nearly everyone signs up. Milton Friedman made a version of this argument decades ago—that a smaller bureaucracy is not just cheaper, but freer, treating people as capable of managing their own lives rather than as subjects to be screened and monitored.⁹ Place-based targeting couples that same efficiency with dignity, rather than trading one for the other.

In every Rx Kids community, families receive a welcome packet and a letter celebrating the arrival of their child. Parents frequently describe feeling seen, respected, and supported—not because they navigated a complex eligibility process, but because their community welcomed them and invested in their family’s future. Those experiences may be harder to quantify than preterm birth or health care utilization, but they are nonetheless meaningful public health outcomes. Policies and programs do not merely allocate resources; they also shape trust, belonging, and social cohesion. The community-wide design is not simply an implementation detail—it is an active ingredient of the intervention.

The problem never was a lack of information about where the need is greatest. The maps are clear. The persistence of individually targeted programs in the face of geographically concentrated harm is a failure of imagination. What the moment calls for is not another pilot or proof-of-concept demonstration, but the willingness to think at the scale of the problem: to resist the knee-jerk reflex toward creating complicated policies and programs for individuals by instead designing interventions bold and permanent enough to match the geography of the harm itself.

References

About the Authors