The Fund supports several networks of state health policymakers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis on topics important to state health policymakers, particularly on issues related to state leadership, primary care, aging, and health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that aims to improve population health by connecting leaders and decision makers with the best available evidence and experience. It does this work by:
The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
Sandro Galea Read Bio
Salma M. Abdalla
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
The state of American health leaves much to be desired. Since 2015 there has been a consecutive three-year drop in life expectancy, last seen a hundred years ago during the 1918 flu pandemic. The United States ranks last on nearly all health indicators compared to peer high-income countries despite spending more on health care. So-called diseases of despair, particularly increases in opioid addiction and suicides, are principally responsible for the rise in mortality and subsequent decline in life expectancy. Fundamentally, however, the challenge to US health has been a systematic disinvestment in the socioeconomic and physical conditions that generate health. Over the past 30 to 40 years, the United States has increasingly moved toward an individualistic ethos resulting in disinvestment in a full range of forces that shape life experiences and promote health; for example, public safety, public education, parks and recreation, the environment, stable housing, and economic opportunity. This has been accompanied by increasing investment in curative care—aiming to restore people to health once they are already sick—that is no substitute for building a society that generates health and prevents disease. This approach has contributed to an approximately five-year loss in life expectancy compared to peer countries, as well as a widening of health gaps, resulting in more than twenty-year gaps in life expectancy in counties across the United States, and, perhaps more startlingly, similar gaps within cities, with neighborhoods that are often mere miles apart having dramatically different health status. This decline in our national health comes against a backdrop of racial/ethnic inequalities that are inextricably intertwined with socioeconomic marginalization and patterns of health achievement, or lack thereof.
To rectify the current state of affairs nationally, a wholesale change in the national health conversation—one that puts health at the heart of all policymaking—is required. This argument is not new. A “Health in All Policies” approach, for example, has long been championed by the American Public Health Association as a way of ensuring that health is at the forefront of all decision-making. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a tool designed by the World Health Organization to allow an assessment of the health impact of disparate policy approaches—from transportation to housing, and education to taxation—as a means of guiding policymaking to generate health. Several countries have adopted approaches that have placed health front and center in their decision-making, with commensurate positive results. For example, Sweden reformulated its system through a dedicated focus on the promotion of social welfare policies that engender population health. While its shift in this direction spans decades, Sweden passed the Comprehensive Swedish Public Health Policy in 2003 seeking “to create the social conditions to ensure good health on equal terms for the entire population.”1 This focus, capitalizing on HIA to evaluate potential policy approaches, is entirely consistent with the notion that to promote the health of populations, we need to invest in the social, cultural, and political factors that promote health. It has also borne fruit; Swedish age-standardized mortality has dropped significantly over the past decades and Sweden today has one of the highest life expectancies in the world. Other efforts that have placed health at the center of the national conversation have taken place in Chile, Thailand, and Ecuador.
Now, adding to this track record is New Zealand with its recent launch of a Wellbeing Budget, an effort to align national budgetary policies with key priority areas—improving mental health, reducing child poverty, addressing inequalities faced by indigenous people, thriving in a digital age, and transitioning to a low-emission, sustainable economy—encouraging different sectors of government to dedicate resources to achieving shared goals.2 The New Zealand effort distinguishes itself from previous national efforts by using a return on investment approach. By investing in key areas of interest, New Zealand will obtain returns that make the investments worthwhile, not simply through better national wellbeing, but also economically, as better health yields social and economic dividends.
New Zealand’s Wellbeing Budget is laudable in several ways. Placing return on investment at the heart of population health improvement is consistent with a robust understanding of the principles of population health science, recognizing that prevention is far more effective at generating positive health, social, and economic outcomes than is budgetary approach that can align incentives for various governmental units, New Zealand succeeds in creating a vision of health as a national value, with potential pathways to its execution that can yield the desired ends. The eventual outcome of the New Zealand experiment remains, of course, to be seen, but its promise is sufficient to make us ask: Could such an effort help the United States emerge from its health doldrums?
There is little question that the United States trails badly on all five dimensions that are the focus of New Zealand’s efforts:
Is a New Zealand-style effort possible in the United States? Despite the national health slump in which we presently find ourselves, and a decades-long track record that encourages pessimism, this does not seem implausible. The US Surgeon General has launched a report on Community Health and Economic Prosperity, which aims to synthesize our understanding of the drivers of health in the country and how efforts to improve health can result in social and economic returns on our investment. While a small step forward, it represents a positive engagement with the twinned notions that our health is not as good as it should be, and that we would be much better off if we took the right steps to make it better. The broader political moment, currently in the run up to a federal election, has seen a resurgence of populist approaches that include an avowed interest in reinvesting in social and economic programs that would improve forces such as education and housing, which, in turn, would contribute to population health.
The health of the American population will not change unless we change how we talk about health and we shift our approach to investing in the foundational drivers of health. That will require that citizens demand health, a commensurately responsive public policy, and private sector engagement with the appreciation that actions that improve health also deliver bottom line returns. Optimistically, the New Zealand Wellbeing Budget—which has been received rapturously in the global conversation—could represent a catalyst, a global turning point in which countries, such as the United States, that seem to have forgotten the foundational drivers of health, reengage around these forces to the benefit of population health. That would be a welcome change indeed.
New Zealand’s Wellbeing Budget Invests in Population Health By Michael Mintrom
What Does a Wellbeing Budget Mean for Health and Health Care? By Ashley Bloomfield
Published 2019 DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12410
Get the Latest from the Milbank Memorial Fund
The Milbank Quarterly’s multidisciplinary approach and commitment to applying the best empirical research to practical policymaking offers in-depth assessments of the social, economic, political, historical, legal, and ethical dimensions of health and health care policy.