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 2024 (Volume 102)
Quarterly Article
James René Jolin
Barak Richman
Ateev Mehrotra
Carmel Shachar
Sep 22, 2026
June 2024
The Future of Population Health
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
The COVID-19 pandemic sparked a dramatic increase in the use of telehealth in the United States,1 aided in no small part by a flurry of temporary payment and regulatory changes. These included expansions in reimbursement for telehealth services as well as suspensions of patient privacy regulations and offering liability immunity for practitioners. One additional notable move was to waive certain licensing requirements for providers practicing telehealth across state lines.2, 3 Most of these temporary physician licensure waivers are either poised to expire or have expired already.
During the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), certain patient populations were more likely to receive interstate telemedicine visits. Patients living near a state border and receiving specialized care only available in selection locations—such as oncology and pediatric patients4,5—were more likely to receive a telehealth visit in another state. College students with an established care relationship with a mental health provider also benefited because they did not have to disrupt treatment when traveling to school or returning home during breaks.6 For this population, expanded access to mental health providers as a result of telemedicine is particularly essential given that three million students attend college away from their home state per year and approximately half a million college students lose access to psychiatric care each year because of licensure barriers.7 During this period of licensure flexibility, patients could enter clinical trials held in another state that supported the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its effort to decentralize clinical trials and to reduce barriers to participation.8
Given the many patients who benefited from interstate telehealth, advocates argue for permanently reinstituting the permissive telehealth rules adopted under the PHE or instituting permanent reforms of physician licensure, either at the state or federal level, to facilitate interstate telehealth. However, as we detail in this piece, political realities make this approach likely unfeasible. Therefore, alternative approaches that are narrower in nature are likely needed to improve access to interstate telemedicine for particular populations without disrupting the current state-based licensure regime.
This article explores a menu of possible incremental policy measures that could expand access of interstate telehealth to key patient populations. We focus on physician licensure in this article because it represents the largest debate in health care licensure at present, but we acknowledge that similar issues also exist in the licensure regimes for other clinicians such as social workers and psychologists. We organize our list of reforms according to their breadth and ambition, beginning with modest reforms that states can pursue unilaterally, then multistate initiatives that would both require and improve coordination among states, and finally with narrowly targeted federal reforms. For each reform, we outline its strengths and weakness with the aim of advancing pathways for patients to benefit from interstate telehealth.