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.
September 25, 2026
Quarterly Article
Curisa M. Tucker
Jennifer Baumstark
Jul 30, 2026
Jul 29, 2026
Jun 29, 2026
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: Certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) provide evidence-based maternity care associated with improved birth outcomes, yet half of US states do not grant them independent practice authority. State scope-of-practice regulations may function as structural determinants of maternal health by constraining both the midwifery workforce and the conditions under which care is delivered. Prior studies have documented associations between midwifery regulation and workforce availability but have not formally tested the mechanisms linking regulation to population-level maternal health outcomes.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional ecological analysis of all 50 US states, classifying each by CNM practice authority (independent, collaborative, or restricted) using American College of Nurse-Midwives state practice environment data (March 2026). CNM workforce density was calculated from American Midwifery Certification Board data (2022-2023). The primary outcome was the maternal vulnerability index (MVI), a composite of 43 indicators excluding provider density. The secondary outcome was March of Dimes preterm birth report card grades. We used one-way analysis of variance, multiple linear regression, and Baron and Kenny mediation analysis with Sobel tests and bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals to test whether workforce density mediated the relationship between practice authority and maternal vulnerability.
Findings: States allowing independent practice had significantly higher CNM densities than collaborative states (6.5 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 births, P < .001), as well as lower MVI scores (2.1 vs. 4.1, P < .001). The effect sizes were large (Cohen’s d = 1.34 for CNM density, d = −1.62 for MVI). CNM density was found to mediate 26.7% of the practice authority–MVI association (Sobel z = −2.10, P = .036; 95% bias-corrected and accelerated [BCa] bootstrap CI [−0.88, −0.08]). The remaining 73.3% represented a direct policy effect that is not explained by workforce numbers. These results were robust to alternative classifications using nurse practitioner regulatory data.
Conclusions: State CNM scope-of-practice regulations are a modifiable policy lever associated with both clinician workforce distribution and population-level maternal vulnerability. Both regulatory reform and complementary workforce investments are needed to address maternal health inequities.