The Fund supports several networks of state health policymakers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis on topics important to state health policymakers, particularly on issues related to state leadership, primary care, aging, and total costs of care.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
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 an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
March 19, 2020
Early View Original Scholarship
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Context: Insurers and health care providers are investing heavily in nonmedical social interventions in an effort to improve health and potentially reduce health care costs.
Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of all known randomized social experiments in the United States that included health outcomes. We reviewed 5,880 papers, reports, and data sources, ultimately including 61 publications from 38 randomized social experiments. After synthesizing the main findings narratively, we conducted risk of bias analyses, power analyses, and random‐effects meta‐analyses where possible. Finally, we used multivariate regressions to determine which study characteristics were associated with statistically significant improvements in health outcomes.
Findings: The risk of bias was low in 17 studies, moderate in 11, and high in 33. Of the 451 parameter estimates reported, 77% were underpowered to detect health outcomes. Among adequately powered parameters, 49% demonstrated a significant health improvement, 44% had no effect on health, and 7% were associated with significant worsening of health. In meta‐analyses, early life and education interventions were associated with a reduction in smoking (odds ratio [OR] = 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86‐0.99). Income maintenance and health insurance interventions were associated with significant improvements in self‐rated health (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.06‐1.36, and OR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.10‐1.73, respectively), whereas some welfare‐to‐work interventions had a negative impact on self‐rated health (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.66‐0.90). Housing and neighborhood trials had no effect on the outcomes included in the meta‐analyses. A positive effect of the trial on its primary socioeconomic outcome was associated with higher odds of reporting health improvements. We found evidence of publication bias for studies with null findings.
Conclusions: Early life, income, and health insurance interventions have the potential to improve health. However, many of the included studies were underpowered to detect health effects and were at high or moderate risk of bias. Future social policy experiments should be better designed to measure the association between interventions and health outcomes.
Keywords: social experiments, randomized controlled trials, policy analysis, population health, social determinants of health.
Read on Wiley Online Library
Published March 2020 DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12451
Get the Latest from the Milbank Memorial Fund
The Milbank Quarterly’s multidisciplinary approach and commitment to applying the best empirical research to practical policymaking offers in-depth assessments of the social, economic, historical, legal, and ethical dimensions of health and health care policy.