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.
Supporting networks of state officials, advocates, and others aiming to invest in and transform primary care.
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 provide 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.
Upcoming and past 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 1973 (Volume 51)
Quarterly Article
Uwe E. Reinhardt
Sep 14, 2026
Sep 9, 2026
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Students of the American health-care delivery system are generally agreed that, under its present organization, the system will be unable to accommodate any of the more ambitious national health-insurance schemes now before Congress. It is argued that the current system is actually a fragmented “nonsystem” that fails to deliver the right mix of care to the right people and at the right time. As a result, it is argued, the ealth-maintenance services received by the average American tend to be of dubious overall quality and are unnecessarily costly. To eliminate these shortcomings, a great number of reforms have been proposed, the bulk of which, however, fall into one of the following major types: (a) a shift away from the fee-for-service mode of paying for health services and toward prepayment of comprehensive health care, (b) the substitution of paramedical for medical manpower and of capital for all types of manpower, (c) the consolidation of small provider facilities (especially solo medical practices) into larger production units, and (d) the integration of provider facilities in centrally directed regional systems. In this essay, the various reform proposals that have been proposed at one time or another are explored against the backdrop of pertinent empirical research available at this time. This exploration leads to the disappointing conclusion that far too many of the proposed reorganization schemes-particularly the much touted idea of a nationwide network of presumably competitive Health Maintenance Organizations-appear to have been proffered more on the basis of intuition or faith than on the basis of convincing empirical evidence. At the risk of appearing timid and of exasperating the impatient reformer, the author concludes that a great deal more empirical information needs to be gathered on the behavior of the participants in the health-care sector and on the technical constraints under which that sector operates before one can confidently develop and follow a coherent blue-print for a reorganization of the American health-care system.
Author(s): Uwe E. Reinhardt
Download the Article
Read on JSTOR
Volume 51, Issue 2 (pages 169–222) Published in 1973