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.
July 30, 2026
Quarterly Article
Christina Laternser
Sep 25, 2026
Jul 29, 2026
Jun 29, 2026
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: Geographic gaps in hospital-based obstetric services are often framed as “maternity care deserts,” emphasizing community vulnerability and motivating targeted investments. This study was conducted to test whether service geography is more closely aligned with an operational feasibility regime: the birth volume and workforce capacity associated with the observed presence of obstetric services.
Methods: A national county-year panel (2015-2023) was constructed and used to compare vulnerability-oriented versus feasibility-oriented explanations for the presence of obstetric services. Feasibility was measured using prior-year birth volume and physician workforce supply, as well as their interaction (ln[births] × workforce). Logistic regression models were estimated with county-clustered standard errors, and non-nested specifications were compared using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion. Analyses were also stratified by metropolitan status.
Findings: Feasibility-based specifications were found to substantially outperform vulnerability-only models (ΔAIC > 10,000). A hybrid specification including feasibility inputs and maternal vulnerability achieved the strongest overall fit, indicating that vulnerability contributes explanatory information conditional on observed feasibility conditions. In nonmetropolitan counties, an increase in the birth volume from the 25th to the 75th percentile was associated with a 41 percentage point increase in the predicted presence of services, compared with 20 percentage points for a corresponding change in the workforce.
Conclusions: Obstetric service distribution was found to be most consistent with a hybrid structure in which feasibility-related inputs aligned more strongly with the presence of services and vulnerability contributed additional explanatory information conditional on those inputs. These findings suggest that vulnerability-targeted approaches may imply different policy approaches than interventions targeting observed operational conditions. Within settings consistent with observed feasibility conditions, or where operational arrangements are modified, vulnerability gradients can guide where stabilization investments are most needed.