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 2018 (Volume 96)
Quarterly Article
Susan Dorr Goold
C. Daniel Myers
Marion Danis
Julia Abelson
Steve Barnett
Karen Calhoun
Eric G. Campbell
Lynnette LaHahnn
Adnan Hammad
René Pérez Rosenbaum
Hyungjin Myra Kim
Cengiz Salman
Lisa Szymecko
Zachary E. Rowe
Sep 25, 2026
Sep 23, 2026
Sep 22, 2026
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: A major contributor to health disparities is the relative lack of resources—including resources for science—allocated to address the health problems of those with disproportionately greater needs. Engaging and involving underrepresented communities in setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values.We engaged minority and underserved communities in informed deliberations and report here their priorities for health research.
Methods: Academic-community partnerships adapted the simulation exercise CHAT for setting health research priorities.We had participants from minority and medically underserved communities (47 groups, n = 519) throughout Michigan deliberate about health research priorities, and we used surveys and CHAT software to collect the demographic characteristics and priorities selected by individuals and groups.
Findings: The participants ranged in age (18 to 88), included more women than men, and were overrepresented by minority groups. Nearly all the deliberating groups selected child health and mental health research (93.6% and 95.7%), and most invested at the highest level. Aging, access, promote health, healthy environment, and what causes disease were also prioritized by groups. Research on mental health and child health were high priorities for individuals both before and after group deliberations. Access was the only category more likely to be selected by individuals after group deliberation (77.0 vs 84.0%, OR = 1.63, p = .005), while improve research, health policy, and culture and beliefs were less likely to be selected after group deliberations (all, p < .001). However, the level of investment in many categories changed after the group deliberations. Participants identifying as Black/African American were less likely to prioritize mental health research, and those of Other race were more likely to prioritize culture and beliefs research.
Conclusions: Minority and medically underserved communities overwhelmingly prioritized mental health and child health research in informed deliberations about spending priorities.
Keywords: resource allocation, minority groups, decision making, research priorities, deliberation, deliberative democracy, community engagement.
Read on Wiley Online Library
Volume 96, Issue 4 (pages 675-705) DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12354 Published in 2018