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, healthy aging, and sustainable 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 is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
Barron H. Lerner
Dec 1, 2022
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2009 decision on breast cancer screening for women in their forties produced a vehemently negative outcry. Rather than recommending mammograms for all such women, as it had in 2002, the group said that the decision should be between women and their doctors. Critics not only objected to the recommendation but charged that the Task Force had not been transparent enough with its evaluation process and had issued its controversial recommendation in an unclear manner. Subsequently, the Task Force has spent considerable time and energy trying to be more transparent and communicative.
Although these are welcome developments, they obfuscate a more fundamental explanation for why the Task Force’s “C” grade for mammography caused so much protest: the differing concepts of evidence among the Task Force and its critics. To many, the Task Force’s work has been seen as the culmination of decades of growth of evidence-based medicine (EBM), a field that appraises the quality of the available evidence to guide medical decision-making. But merely developing improved criteria for evaluating evidence does not ensure that it will be seen as “correct,” let alone popular.
Task Force members would be the first to acknowledge that what they and other developers of guidelines do necessarily includes some degree of subjectivity. But this may be a difficult concept to convey given that the Task Force is charged with reviewing all of the available evidence and then generating the “right” recommendations. Attention to Task Force decisions has only increased since 2003, when coverage of screening procedures under the Medicare Modernization Act began to take Task Force grades into account and 2010, when the same became true for funding decisions under the Affordable Care Act.1 This paper will use the 2009 mammography recommendation to revisit the fault lines that emerge when experts convene to evaluate and communicate what they perceive as the best evidence.
READ ON WILEY ONLINE LIBRARY
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.