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.
September 2022 (Volume 100)
Quarterly Article
Barron H. Lerner
Graham Curtiss-Rowlands
Sep 14, 2026
Sep 9, 2026
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