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.
June 2017 (Volume 95)
Quarterly Article
Sarah E. Gollust
Stacy W. Gray
Deanna Alexis Carere
Barbara A. Koenig
Lisa Soleymani Lehmann
Amy L. McGuire
Richard R. Sharp
Kayte Spector-Bagdady
Na Wang
Robert C. Green
J. Scott Roberts
for the PGEN Study Group
Sep 17, 2026
Sep 14, 2026
Sep 9, 2026
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: While policymakers have been considering the appropriateness of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing (DTC-PGT) for more than a decade, there is little empirical data on consumers’ views regarding the regulation of these products. No research has assessed whether consumers’ personal experience with testing is related to their views about access to and regulation of DTC tests.
Methods: Data were analyzed from the PGen Study, a longitudinal prospective cohort of DTC-PGT customers of 23andMe (n = 564) and Pathway Genomics (n = 377; total N = 941). Consumers were sent an electronic survey before receiving genetic test results and again 6 months after receipt of results.
Findings: At the 6-month follow-up, more than 80% of participants believed that people have a right to access genetic information directly, that parents should be able to get DTC-PGT testing for their children, and that genetic information should be kept private. Participants supported health insurance coverage of PGT (60%), wider availability of PGT (68%), and inclusion of genetic information in medical records (63%). Participants were less supportive of government regulation (28%) and restricting testing to clinical settings (14%). Conservative political ideology was associated with less support for government regulation (P < 0.001), as was feeling more confident in one’s genetic knowledge (P < 0.05). Participants’ level of computed genetic risk for common diseases, as indicated by their actual test results received from companies, showed no relationship with attitudes. However, those who perceived that they had received elevated risk results expressed lower support for expanded availability and incorporation of PGT into health care (P < 0.01). Those who reported being upset by their genetic test results were less likely to endorse access to DTC products without a medical professional (P < 0.01).
Conclusions: PGT consumers supported expanded access to these services and opposed additional regulation. Users who had a negative personal experience with PGT testing were less supportive of expanded availability without a medical professional.
Keywords: genetic testing, ethics, regulation, public opinion.
Read on Wiley Online Library
Volume 95, Issue 2 (pages 291–318) DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12262 Published in 2017