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.
Supporting networks of state officials, advocates, and others aiming to invest in and transform primary care.
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 provide 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.
Upcoming and past 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.
Quarterly Topic
Quarterly Opinion
September 2026 Sara Rosenbaum, Jane L. Tavares, Marc A. Cohen, Alison Barkoff, Feygele Jacobs,
It is axiomatic that federal rules must be legal. More
April 2026 Joshua M. Sharfstein,
At the very end of the Clinton Administration, Republican Congresswoman JoAnne Emerson inserted a two-paragraph provision into the 2001 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act. These paragraphs would become known as the Data Quality Act (as well as the Information Quality Act) and its passage represented a major victory for industries – including the tobacco and chemical industries – regulated by the federal government. More
February 2025 Sara Rosenbaum,
The Trump Administration is defending the ACA’s free preventive benefit guarantee before the Supreme Court as part of its effort to exercise whole-of-government control over US policy, says Sara Rosenbaum in this Opinion. More
November 2024 Joshua M. Sharfstein, Michelle L. Bedoya,
In a series of decisions, the US Supreme Court has severely constrained the authority of federal agencies to regulate in the interest of public… More
October 2024 Simon F. Haeder, Susan Webb Yackee,
Health disparities—the differences in access to health care and related services as well as in health utilization and outcomes—are influenced by… More
July 2024 Sara Rosenbaum, MaryBeth Musumeci,
New federal court decisions have delayed the implementation of new rules protecting health care for transgender people issued under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. More
Quarterly Article
May 2024 Larisa Svirsky, Dana Howard, Martin Fried, Nathan Richards, Nicole Thomas, Patricia J. Zettler,
Context: Opioid treatment agreements (OTAs) are documents that clinicians present to patients when prescribing opioids that describe the risks of… More
April 2024 Daniel Dawes, Anthony Iton,
The Supreme Court’s June 29, 2023, ruling that affirmative action in the admissions processes at Harvard College and the University of North… More
March 2024 Lindsay Admon, Erica Marsh, Kayte Spector-Bagdady,
ar from keeping courts away from social controversy as promised, the Dobbs decision – and the individual state power to dictate circumstances under which patients can access myriad types of reproductive health care it unleashed – pose implications that remain unpredictable, inequitable, and heart-wrenching for patients and providers alike. More
May 2023 Joshua N. Auerbach, Joshua M. Sharfstein,
Two recent, much-discussed decisions from federal courts in Texas—one striking down the Affordable Care Act’s requirements for insurance coverage of preventive health services, the other invalidating the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone—illustrate a deepening tension between the public health community and the courts. Both decisions are now on appeal and may not ultimately be affirmed. More