After The Demonstration: What States Sustained After the End of Federal Grants to Improve Children's Health Care Quality.

Introduction Under the CHIPRA Quality Demonstration Grant Program, CMS awarded $100 million through 10 grants that 18 state Medicaid agencies implemented between 2010 and 2015. The program's legislatively-mandated purpose was to evaluate promising ideas for improving the quality of children's health care provided through Medicaid and CHIP. As part of the program's multifaceted evaluation, this study examined the extent to which states sustained key program activities after the demonstration ended. Methods We identified 115 potentially sustainable elements within states' CHIPRA demonstrations and analyzed data from grantee reports and key informant interviews to assess sustainment outcomes and key influential factors. We also assessed sustainment of the projects' intellectual capital. Results 56% of potentially sustainable elements were sustained. Sustainment varied by topic area: Elements related to quality measure reporting and practice facilitation were more likely to be sustained than others, such as parent advisors. Broad contextual factors, the state's Medicaid environment, implementation partners' resources, and characteristics of the demonstration itself all shaped sustainment outcomes. Discussion Assessing sustainment of key elements of states' CHIPRA quality demonstration projects provides insight into the fates of the "promising ideas" that the grant program was designed to examine. As a result of the federal government's investment in this grant program, many demonstration states are in a strong position to extend and spread specific strategies for improving the quality of care for children in Medicaid and CHIP. Our findings provide insights for policymakers and providers working to improve the quality of health care for low income children.

Perspectives on Implementing Quality Improvement Collaboratives Effectively: Qualitative Findings from the CHIPRA Quality Demonstration Grant Program.

BACKGROUND: The most frequently pursued intervention in the $100 million, 18-state Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) quality demonstration (2010-2015) was quality improvement collaboratives, which 12 states offered to more than 300 primary care practices. A study was conducted to identify which aspects of these collaboratives were viewed by organizers and participants as working well and which were not. METHODS: Some 223 interviews were conducted in these states near the end of their collaboratives. Interview notes were coded and analyzed to identify trends. RESULTS: Aspects of collaboratives that interviewees valued were aimed at attracting participation, maintaining engagement, or facilitating learning. To attract participants, interviewees recommended offering maintenance-of-certification credits, aligning content with existing financial incentives, hiring a knowledgeable collaborative organizer of the same medical specialty as participants, and having national experts speak at meetings. Positively viewed approaches for maintaining engagement included meeting one-on-one with practices to articulate participation expectations in advance, tying disbursal of stipends to meeting participation expectations, and soliciting feedback and making mid-course adjustments. To facilitate learning, interviewees liked learning from other practices, interactive exercises, practical handouts, and meeting face-to-face with new referral partners. CONCLUSION: Prior studies have tended to focus on strategies to maintain engagement. The interviewees valued these features but also valued aspects of collaboratives that attracted participants in the first place and facilitated learning after participants were actively engaged. The findings suggest that a wider array of features may be important when developing or evaluating collaboratives. Collaborative organizers may benefit from incorporating the recommended collaborative features into their own collaboratives.

What Factors Influence States' Capacity to Report Children's Health Care Quality Measures? A Multiple-Case Study.

Objectives The objective of this study was to describe factors that influence the ability of state Medicaid agencies to report the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) core set of children's health care quality measures (Child Core Set). Methods We conducted a multiple-case study of four high-performing states participating in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) Quality Demonstration Grant Program: Illinois, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Oregon. Cases were purposively selected for their diverse measurement approaches and used data from 2010 to 2015, including 154 interviews, semiannual grant progress reports, and annual public reports on Child Core Set measures. We followed Yin's multiple-case study methodology to describe how and why each state increased the number of measures reported to CMS. Results All four states increased the number of Child Core Set measures reported to CMS during the grant period. Each took a different approach to reporting, depending on the available technical, organizational, and behavioral inputs in the state. Reporting capacity was influenced by a state's Medicaid data availability, ability to link to other state data systems, past experience with quality measurement, staff time and technical expertise, and demand for the measures. These factors were enhanced by CHIPRA Quality Demonstration grant funding and other federal capacity building activities, as hypothesized in our conceptual framework. These and other states have made progress reporting the Child Core Set since 2010. Conclusion With financial support and investment in state data systems and organizational factors, states can overcome challenges to reporting most of the Child Core Set measures.

Effects of organizational context on Lean implementation in five hospital systems.

BACKGROUND: Despite broad agreement among researchers about the value of examining how context shapes implementation of improvement programs and projects, limited attention has been paid to contextual effects on implementation of Lean. PURPOSE: To help reduce gaps in knowledge of effects of intraorganizational context, we researched Lean implementation initiatives in five organizations and examined 12 of their Lean rapid improvement projects. All projects aimed at improving clinical care delivery. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: On the basis of the literature on Lean, innovation, and quality improvement, we developed a framework of factors likely to affect Lean implementation and outcomes. Drawing on the framework, we conducted semistructured interviews and applied qualitative codes to the transcribed interviews. Available documents, data, and observations supplemented the interviews. We constructed case studies of Lean implementation in each organization, compared implementation across organizations, and compared the 12 projects. FINDINGS: Intraorganizational characteristics affecting organization-wide Lean initiatives and often also shaping project outcomes included CEO commitment to Lean and active support for it, prior organizational capacity for quality improvement-based performance improvement, alignment of the Lean initiative with the organizational mission, dedication of resources and experts to Lean, staff training before and during projects, establishment of measurable and relevant project targets, planning of project sequences that enhance staff capabilities and commitment without overburdening them, and ensuring communication between project members and other affected staff. Dependence of projects on inputs of new information technology was a barrier to project success. Incremental implementation of Lean produced reported improvements in operational efficiency and occasionally in care quality. However, even under the relatively favorable circumstances prevailing in our study sites, incremental implementation did not readily change organizational culture. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study should alert researchers, managers, and teachers of management to ways that contexts shape Lean implementation and may affect other types of process redesign and quality improvement.

Engaging patients and stakeholders in preresearch: findings from the Pipeline to Proposal Awards Initiative.

Aim: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Pipeline to Proposal (P2P) Awards Initiative funded 177 awardees to engage patients and stakeholder partners in preresearch. Based on P2P, we described engagement strategies; outcomes; facilitators; and challenges to inform research funders and stakeholders participating in preresearch. Materials & methods: We used a qualitative approach based on content analysis of program data and interviews with P2P awardees and partners. Results: Awardees developed partnership infrastructure by recruiting patients and stakeholders, establishing clear roles, and providing training. Building trust was key to engaging patients and stakeholders in preresearch. Awardees reported partners were more likely to engage in PCOR in the future. Conclusion: P2P awardees increased capacity of patient and stakeholder partnerships to conduct PCOR.

Variations in inpatient mortality among hospitals in different system types, 1995 to 2000.

BACKGROUND: Relatively few studies focused on the impact of system formation and hospital merger on quality, and these studies reported typically little or no quality effect. OBJECTIVE: To study associations among 5 main types of health systems--centralized, centralized physician/insurance, moderately centralized, decentralized, and independent--and inpatient mortality from acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure, stroke, and pneumonia. DATA AND METHODS: Panel data (1995-2000) were assembled from 11 states and multiple sources: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality State Inpatient Database, American Hospital Association Annual Surveys, Area Resource File, HMO InterStudy, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We applied a panel study design with fixed effects models using information on variation within hospitals. RESULTS: We found that centralized health systems are associated with lower AMI, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia mortality. Independent hospital systems had better AMI quality outcomes than centralized physician/insurance and moderately centralized health systems. We found no difference in inpatient mortality among system types for the stroke outcome. Thus, for certain types of clinical service lines and patients, hospital system type matters. Research that focuses only on system membership may mask the impact of system type on the quality of care.

Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory.

OBJECTIVE: To provide practical strategies for conducting and evaluating analyses of qualitative data applicable for health services researchers. DATA SOURCES AND DESIGN: We draw on extant qualitative methodological literature to describe practical approaches to qualitative data analysis. Approaches to data analysis vary by discipline and analytic tradition; however, we focus on qualitative data analysis that has as a goal the generation of taxonomy, themes, and theory germane to health services research. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: We describe an approach to qualitative data analysis that applies the principles of inductive reasoning while also employing predetermined code types to guide data analysis and interpretation. These code types (conceptual, relationship, perspective, participant characteristics, and setting codes) define a structure that is appropriate for generation of taxonomy, themes, and theory. Conceptual codes and subcodes facilitate the development of taxonomies. Relationship and perspective codes facilitate the development of themes and theory. Intersectional analyses with data coded for participant characteristics and setting codes can facilitate comparative analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative inquiry can improve the description and explanation of complex, real-world phenomena pertinent to health services research. Greater understanding of the processes of qualitative data analysis can be helpful for health services researchers as they use these methods themselves or collaborate with qualitative researchers from a wide range of disciplines.

A practice-sponsored Web site to help patients pursue healthy behaviors: an ACORN study.

PURPOSE: We tested whether patients are more likely to pursue healthy behaviors (eg, physical activity, smoking cessation) if referred to a tailored Web site that provides valuable information for behavior change. METHODS: In a 9-month pre-post comparison with nonrandomized control practices, 6 family practices (4 intervention, 2 control) encouraged adults with unhealthy behaviors to visit the Web site. For patients from intervention practices, the Web site offered tailored health advice, a library of national and local resources, and printouts for clinicians. For patients from control practices, the Web site offered static information pages. Patient surveys assessed stage of change and health behaviors at baseline and follow-up (at 1 and 4 months), Web site use, and satisfaction. RESULTS: During the 9 months, 932 patients (4% of adults attending the practice) visited the Web site, and 273 completed the questionnaires. More than 50% wanted physician assistance with health behaviors. Stage of change advanced and health behaviors improved in both intervention and control groups. Intervention patients reported greater net improvements at 1 month, although the differences approached significance only for physical activity and readiness to change dietary fat intake. Patients expressed satisfaction with the Web site but wished it provided more detailed information and greater interactivity with clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians face growing pressure to offer patients good information on health promotion and other health care topics. Referring patients to a well-designed Web site that offers access to the world's best information is an appealing alternative to offering handouts or impromptu advice. Interactive Web sites can facilitate behavior change and can interface with electronic health records. Determining whether referral to an informative Web site improves health outcomes is a methodological challenge, but the larger question is whether information alone is sufficient to promote behavior change. Web sites are more likely to be effective as part of a suite of tools that incorporate personal assistance.

Health care market trends and the evolution of hospitalist use and roles.

OBJECTIVE: To describe local health care market dynamics that support increasing use of hospitalists' services and changes in their roles. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews in 12 randomly selected, nationally representative communities in the Community Tracking Study conducted in 2002-2003. Interviews were coded in qualitative data analysis software. We identified patterns and themes within and across study sites, and verified conclusions by triangulating responses from different respondent types, examining outliers, searching for corroborating or disconfirming evidence, and testing rival explanations. SETTING: Medical groups, hospitals, and health plans in 12 representative communities. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seven purposively sampled executives at the 3-4 largest medical groups, hospitals, and health plans in each community: medical directors and medical staff presidents; chief executive and managing officers; executives responsible for contracting, physician networks, hospital patient safety, patient care services, planning, and marketing; and local medical and hospital association leaders. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We asked plan and hospital respondents about their competitive strategies, including their experience with cost pressures, hospital patient flow problems, and hospital patient safety efforts. We asked all respondents about changes in their local market over the past 2 years generally, and specifically: hospitals' and physicians' responses to market pressures; payment arrangements hospitals and physicians had with private health plans; and physicians' relationships with plans and hospitals. We drew on data on hospitalist practice structures, employment relationships, and productivity/compensation from the Society for Hospital Medicine's 2002 membership survey. Factors that fomented the creation of the hospital medicine movement persist, including cost pressures and primary care physicians' decreasing inpatient volume. But emerging influences made hospitalists even more attractive, including worsening problems with patient flow in hospitals, rising malpractice costs, and the growing national focus on patient safety. Local market forces resulted in new hospitalist roles and program structures, regarding which organizations sponsored hospitalist programs, employed them, and the functions they served in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have important implications for patients, hospitalists, and their employers. Hospitalists may require changes in education and training, develop competing goals and priorities, and face new issues in their relationships with health plans, hospitals, and other physicians.

Benefits of and barriers to large medical group practice in the United States.

BACKGROUND: For decades, reformers argued that medical groups can efficiently provide high-quality care and a collegial professional environment. The growth of managed care and the movement to improve quality provide additional reasons for physicians to practice in groups, especially large groups. However, information is lacking on recent trends in group size and the benefits of and barriers to group practice. OBJECTIVES: To identify benefits of and barriers to large medical group practice, and to describe recent trends in group size. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Information on benefits and barriers was obtained from 195 interviews conducted during round 3 (2000-2001) of the Community Tracking Study with leaders of the largest groups, hospitals, and health insurance plans in 12 randomly selected metropolitan areas. Information on recent trends in group size was obtained from more than 6000 physicians in private practice in 48 randomly selected metropolitan areas via Community Tracking Study telephone surveys in 1997-1998, 1998-1999, and 2000-2001. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Benefits of and barriers to large group practice, as perceived by interviewees, and changes in percentages of physicians in groups of varying sizes. RESULTS: Gaining negotiating leverage with health insurance plans was the most frequently cited benefit; it was cited 8 times more often than improving quality. Lack of physician cooperation, investment, and leadership were the most frequently cited barriers. Survey data indicate that 47% of private physicians work in practices of 1 or 2 physicians and 82% in practices of 9 or fewer, and that the percentage of physicians in groups of 20 or more did not increase between 1996 and 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Current payment methods reward gaining size to obtain negotiating leverage more than they reward quality. However, barriers to creating large medical groups are substantial, and most private physicians continue to practice in small groups, although the size of these groups is slowly increasing.

Quality improvement by providers: market developments hinder progress.

Providers report maintaining, but not greatly enhancing, their quality improvement (QI) programs between 1999 and 2001. In addition, recent market developments are intensifying barriers to providers' QI efforts. A notable exception is the tremendous attention to medical errors, which is stimulating patient-safety activities in hospitals. It is too early to tell if the momentum from these activities can be sustained and provide a spark for revolutionary changes in QI more broadly.

What is driving hospitals' patient-safety efforts?

The Institute of Medicine's report To Err Is Human described the alarming prevalence of medical errors and recommended a range of activities to improve patient safety. Three general mechanisms for stimulating hospitals to reduce medical errors are professionalism, regulation, and market forces. Although some believe that market forces are becoming more important, we found that a quasi-regulatory organization (the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations) has been the primary driver of hospitals' patient-safety initiatives. Professional and market initiatives have also facilitated improvement, but hospitals report that these have had less impact to date.

Financial pressures spur physician entrepreneurialism.

Using data from Round Four of the Community Tracking Study (CTS) site visits, we describe how recent revenue and cost pressures have led physicians to aggressively increase prices and service volume and provide fewer traditional services that are less lucrative. As a result, physicians' business practices are contributing to rising service use and hindering cost containment, which could impair access to critical services for certain populations. In response, policymakers may need to revisit regulation of physicians' conflicts of interest and consider how their financial incentives could be realigned. But the diversity of physicians' behavior requires that policy responses take account of differences between specialists and primary care physicians.

Focused factories? Physician-owned specialty facilities.

Using data from Round Four of the Community Tracking Study site visits, this paper describes the recent rapid increase in physician-owned specialty hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, reasons for this increase, possible impacts, and potential policy options. These facilities could lead to excess capacity, provision of unnecessary services, and lower quality because of decreased volume at some facilities. They also could reduce community hospitals' net revenue and thus their ability to subsidize socially necessary but unprofitable services. But regulatory intervention should be cautious, because data on impact are inconclusive, and these facilities could have the potential to function as "focused factories" that improve quality and reduce costs.

The end of an era: what became of the "managed care revolution" in 2001?

OBJECTIVE: To describe how the organization and dynamics of health systems changed between 1999 and 2001, in the context of expectations from the mid-1990s when managed care was in ascendance, and assess the implications for consumers and policymakers. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Data are from the Community Tracking Study site visits to 12 communities that were randomly selected to be nationally representative of metropolitan areas with 200,000 people or more. The Community Tracking Study is an ongoing effort that began in 1996 and is fielded every two years. STUDY DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 50-90 stakeholders and observers of the local health care market in each of the 12 communities every two years. Respondents include leaders of local hospitals, health plans, and physician organizations and representatives of major employers, state and local governments, and consumer groups. First round interviews were conducted in 1996-1997 and subsequent rounds of interviews were conducted in 1998-1999 and 2000-2001. A total of 1,690 interviews were conducted between 1996 and 2001. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS: Interview information was stored and coded in qualitative data analysis software. Data were analyzed to identify patterns and themes within and across study sites and conclusions were verified by triangulating responses from different respondent types, examining outliers, searching for disconfirming evidence, and testing rival explanations. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Since the mid-1990s, managed care has developed differently than expected in local health care markets nationally. Three key developments shaped health care markets between 1999 and 2001: (1) unprecedented, sustained economic growth that resulted in extremely tight labor markets and made employers highly responsive to employee demands for even fewer restrictions on access to care; (2) health plans increasingly moved away from core strategies in the "managed care toolbox"; and (3) providers gained leverage relative to managed care plans and reverted to more traditional strategies of competing for patients based on services and amenities. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in local health care markets have contributed to rising costs and created new access problems for consumers. Moreover, the trajectory of change promises to make the goals of cost-control and quality improvement more difficult to achieve in the future.

Changes in hospital competitive strategy: a new medical arms race?

OBJECTIVE: To describe changes in hospitals' competitive strategies, specifically the relative emphasis placed on strategies for competing along price and nonprice (i.e., service, amenities, perceived quality) dimensions, and the reasons for any observed shifts. METHODS: This study uses data gathered through the Community Tracking Study site visits, a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of 12 U.S. communities. Research teams visited each of these communities every two years since 1996 and conducted between 50 to 90 semistructured interviews. Additional information on hospital competition and strategy was gathered from secondary data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found that hospitals' strategic emphasis changed significantly between 1996-1997 and 2000-2001. In the mid-1990s, hospitals primarily competed on price through "wholesale" strategies (i.e., providing services attractive to managed care plans). By 2000-2001, nonprice competition was becoming increasingly important and hospitals were reviving "retail" strategies (i.e., providing services attractive to individual physicians and the patients they serve). Three major factors explain this shift in hospital strategy: less than anticipated selective contracting and capitated payment; the freeing up of hospital resources previously devoted to horizontal and vertical integration strategies; and, the emergence and growth of new competitors. CONCLUSION: Renewed emphasis on nonprice competition and retail strategies, and the service mimicking and one-upmanship that result, suggest that a new medical arms race is emerging. However, there are important differences between the medical arms race today and the one that occurred in the 1970s and early 1980s: the hospital market is more concentrated and price competition remains relatively important. The development of a new medical arms race has significant research and policy implications.

Hospitals' negotiating leverage with health plans: how and why has it changed?

OBJECTIVE: To describe how hospitals' negotiating leverage with managed care plans changed from 1996 to 2001 and to identify factors that explain any changes. DATA SOURCES: Primary semistructured interviews, and secondary qualitative (e.g., newspaper articles) and quantitative (i.e., InterStudy, American Hospital Association) data. STUDY DESIGN: The Community Tracking Study site visits to a nationally representative sample of 12 communities with more than 200,000 people. These 12 markets have been studied since 1996 using a variety of primary and secondary data sources. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of individuals from hospitals, health plans, and knowledgeable market observers. Secondary quantitative data on the 12 markets was also obtained. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our findings suggest that many hospitals' negotiating leverage significantly increased after years of decline. Today, many hospitals are viewed as having the greatest leverage in local markets. Changes in three areas--the policy and purchasing context, managed care plan market, and hospital market--appear to explain why hospitals' leverage increased, particularly over the last two years (2000-2001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals' increased negotiating leverage contributed to higher payment rates, which in turn are likely to increase managed care plan premiums. This trend raises challenging issues for policymakers, purchasers, plans, and consumers.

Nine states' use of collaboratives to improve children's health care quality in medicaid and CHIP.

We examine quality improvement (QI) collaboratives underway in 9 states participating in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) Quality Demonstration Grant Program. A total of 147 diverse, child-serving practices were participating in the collaboratives. We conducted 256 semistructured interviews with key stakeholders from March to August 2012-2 years into the 5-year demonstration projects-and analyzed states' grant applications, operating plans, and progress reports. The collaboratives have multiple complex aims. In addition to developing patient-centered medical home (PCMH) capability, some states use collaboratives to familiarize practices with CMS's Initial Core Set of Children's Health Care Quality Measures, practice-level quality measurement, and improving QI knowledge and skills. The duration of the collaboratives is longer than other well-known collaborative models. Collaboratives also vary in their methods for targeting areas for improvement and strategies for motivating practice recruitment and engagement. States also vary with respect to the other strategies they use to support QI and PCMH development. All states supplement the collaboratives with practice facilitation; the majority utilized practice-level parent engagement, but only 4 used workforce augmentation (ie, providing care coordinators and QI specialists). Practice staff highly valued aspects of the collaboratives and supplemental strategies, including the opportunity to work with experts and other child-serving practices; states' efforts to provide stipends and align demonstration efforts with other professional requirements or programs; receipt of relevant, customized QI materials; opportunities to learn how care coordinators or QI specialists might work in their practice without the risk of hiring them; and satisfaction from learning more about quality measures, QI concepts and techniques, critical medical home components, and how to identify PCMH capacity and performance gaps. However, practice staff also reported a variety of challenges, including difficulty learning from other practices that have very different preexisting QI and PCMH capacity and patient populations, or that are working on different topic areas and measures; a sometimes overwhelming amount of materials and ideas covered during in-person meetings; difficulty keeping up with Webinars, calls, and Web sites/blogs; and trouble motivating and sharing information with other practice staff not attending collaborative activities. As the demonstration projects continue, states and the national evaluation team will learn more about how best to use collaboratives and complementary strategies to support child-serving practices in QI and PCMH development. States will also search for ways to sustain and spread these activities after the demonstration ends, if they prove effective.

Health reforms as examples of multilevel interventions in cancer care.

To increase access and improve system quality and efficiency, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with sweeping changes to the nation's health-care system. Although not intended to be specific to cancer, the act's implementation will profoundly impact cancer care. Its components will influence multiple levels of the health-care environment including states, communities, health-care organizations, and individuals seeking care. To illustrate these influences, two reforms are considered: 1) accountable care organizations and 2) insurance-based reforms to gather evidence about effectiveness. We discuss these reforms using three facets of multilevel interventions: 1) their intended and unintended consequences, 2) the importance of timing, and 3) their implications for cancer. The success of complex health reforms requires understanding the scientific basis and evidence for carrying out such multilevel interventions. Conversely and equally important, successful implementation of multilevel interventions depends on understanding the political setting and goals of health-care reform.

Obtaining providers' 'buy-in' and establishing effective means of information exchange will be critical to HITECH's success.

In enacting the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress set ambitious goals for the nation to integrate information technology into health care delivery. The provisions called for the electronic exchange of health information and the adoption and meaningful use of health information technology in health care practices and hospitals. We examined the marketplace and regulatory forces that influence HITECH's success and identify outstanding challenges, some beyond the provisions' control. To reach HITECH's goals, providers and patients must be persuaded of the value of health information exchange and support its implementation. Privacy concerns and remaining technical challenges must also be overcome. Achieving HITECH's goals will require well-aligned incentives, both visionary and practical pursuit of exchange infrastructure, and realistic assumptions about how quickly such wholesale change can be accomplished. The use of metrics to show adoption proceeding at a reasonable pace, increased flow of data across parties, and evidence that care is improving, at least in areas with robust systems, will be essential to persuade stakeholders that the initiative is progressing well and warrants continued investment.