The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers 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 to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest posts from our staff and guest authors.
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 foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
June 29, 2026
Quarterly Article
Ninez A. Ponce
Riti Shimkhada
Tara Becker
Susan Babey
AJ Scheitler
Jun 12, 2026
Jun 1, 2026
June 2026
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: Health equity depends on data equity: the representation of communities in the data used to identify disparities, target interventions, and hold systems accountable. Recent shifts in federal health data infrastructure, including changes to datasets and reductions in agency capacity, have introduced uncertainty for state officials who bear primary responsibility for population health outcomes. Even apart from these shifts, robust state capacity matters in its own right, making investment in resilient data infrastructure a timely priority.
Methods: We examine how changes in federal health data infrastructure affect states’ capacity to advance data equity and how policymakers can respond. We review across state data disaggregation legislation, draw on the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) as a model case, and synthesize evidence on data interoperability, governance, and dissemination.
Findings: Some states are already moving beyond federal minimums on race and ethnicity data collection. For example, Connecticut, Oregon, and Massachusetts have enacted expansive laws collecting detailed subgroups; Illinois, New York, and New Jersey have added Middle Eastern and North African and other categories across all state agencies. Colorado and Oregon extend collection to sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability status. We offer examples from California’s recent legislation and show how CHIS operationalizes such mandates. We also identify persistent constraints, including incomplete demographic fields in administrative data, workforce and interoperability gaps, and the need for governance frameworks and data firewalls that safeguard privacy.
Conclusions: State-led data infrastructure will help build effective public health practice. The aim is not 50 incompatible systems but an ecosystem of comprehensive and inclusive systems that are more granular, responsive, and community-accountable. For such an ecosystem to function, the systems must still communicate, which depends on shared standards and definitions that keep data comparable across states and over time. Realizing this vision requires diversified funding, cross-agency coordination, strong governance, and active roles for researchers, philanthropy, and communities, so that progress in measuring disparities endures across changing policy environments.