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 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.
December 2, 2015
Back to Press Releases
Composite measures are a relatively new arrival on the performance measure scene. Many federal, state and private organizations are adopting them for quality monitoring, provider profiling, and pay-for-performance programs. But not all approaches to composite measures are alike. In a new study in the December issue of The Milbank Quarterly, Michael Shwartz from the Boston University Questrom School of Business, and colleagues, highlight the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to creating composite measures and summarize key issues related to the use of the various measures. They point out that because of the sensitivity of results to the methods used to create composite measures, careful analysis is warranted before deciding to implement a particular method.
