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.
December 2025 (Volume 103)
Quarterly Article
LISA V. RUBENSTEIN
SYDNE J. NEWBERRY
ISHITA GHAI
ANEESA MOTALA
IDAMAY CURTIS
PAUL G. SHEKELLE
TODD H. WAGNER
L. DIEM TRAN
STEPHEN D. FIHN
KARIN M. NELSON
December 2025
Mental Health and Substance Use Challenges
September 2025
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: Current primary care productivity measures do not account for investment in interprofessional primary care teams in relation to primary care goals and thus are insufficient for assessing and improving primary care efficiency and productivity. We explored alternative productivity measurement methods.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review of English language literature between 2008 and 2023 to identify articles that assessed primary care practice productivity and efficiency. We reviewed the full texts of articles to assess their analytic models including inputs, outputs, and context measures. Using scoping review results to inform content, we conducted a modified Delphi expert panel to discuss potential use cases, analytic approaches, and data elements for new primary care productivity measures. Panelists anonymously voted on recommendations for guiding near-term measure development and testing.
Findings: Evidence review identified 25 included studies. The majority (76%, 19/25) used an economic model-based productivity calculation, predominantly estimated using data envelopment analysis (DEA), with stochastic frontier analysis accounting for most of the remainder. Primary care staffing was the most common input, included in 84% of the 19 economic model studies. As outputs, over half (53%) of studies included measures of quality of care, whereas the same proportion included numbers of clinical activities. No studies used patient-reported experiences of care. Expert panelists recommended that initial measure development focus on primary care practice efficiency improvement, building the measure on routinely collected health system data, accounting for the clinical team’s full-time equivalent staffing, and incorporating quality of care. Panelists endorsed DEA while also acknowledging that other approaches had potential.
Conclusions: We identified measurement approaches that aligned with both economic and foundational primary care principles but none that were implemented for routine use. Opportunities exist to develop metrics that accurately reflect primary care structures, goals, and values.