The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest posts from our staff and guest authors.
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 is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
August 12, 2026
Quarterly Article
Jonathan C. Heller
Jul 28, 2026
December 2025
Mental Health and Substance Use Challenges
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: Public health is inherently political, yet it has struggled in recent decades to influence the societal decisions that shape population health. Despite strong evidence supporting policies across domains such as environmental protection, infectious disease control, labor conditions, and reproductive health, the field has faced growing political backlash and policy retrenchment. This Perspective argues that these challenges reflect a mismatch between the forms of power public health primarily deploys and the forms of power that currently shape societal rules and health outcomes.
Analytic Approach: This Perspective draws on an established typology of power to conceptually analyze the forms of power available to public health practitioners and to actors advancing policies and institutional arrangements detrimental to public health.
Findings: Public health has relied primarily on knowledge and moral power, whereas actors advancing policies detrimental to health increasingly wield economic, political, ideological, and physical power within a neoliberal political economy. Under conditions of polarization, disinformation, and institutional capture, knowledge and moral power alone are structurally insufficient to shape the societal rules that determine health. The analysis identifies additional forms of power available to public health—including people, ideological, and nonviolent disruptive power—that could strengthen the field’s political influence while remaining consistent with health equity values.
Conclusions: The analysis suggests a strategic shift for public health: rebuilding people power through partnerships with labor and community organizing groups, strengthening ideological power through sustained investment in narrative infrastructure, and, when democratic institutions fail to protect health, joining with others in the strategic use of nonviolent disruptive power. More broadly, advancing population health will require public health to engage more deliberately with power and politics rather than relying on evidence alone.