Is Bigger Better?: A Closer Look at Small Health Systems in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Research on US health systems has focused on large systems with at least 50 physicians. Little is known about small systems. OBJECTIVES: Compare the characteristics, quality, and costs of care between small and large health systems. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective, repeated cross-sectional analysis. SUBJECTS: Between 468 and 479 large health systems, and between 608 and 641 small systems serving fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, yearly between 2013 and 2017. MEASURES: We compared organizational, provider and beneficiary characteristics of large and small systems, and their geographic distribution, using multiple Medicare and Internal Revenue Service administrative data sources. We used mixed-effects regression models to estimate differences between small and large systems in claims-based Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures and HealthPartners' Total Cost of Care measure using a 100% sample of Medicare fee-for-service claims. We fit linear spline models to examine the relationship between the number of a system's affiliated physicians and its quality and costs. RESULTS: The number of both small and large systems increased from 2013 to 2017. Small systems had a larger share of practice sites (43.1% vs. 11.7% for large systems in 2017) and beneficiaries (51.4% vs. 15.5% for large systems in 2017) in rural areas or small towns. Quality performance was lower among small systems than large systems (-0.52 SDs of a composite quality measure) and increased with system size up to ∼75 physicians. There was no difference in total costs of care. CONCLUSIONS: Small systems are a growing source of care for rural Medicare populations, but their quality performance lags behind large systems. Future studies should examine the mechanisms responsible for quality differences.

Alignment Between Objective and Subjective Assessments of Health System Performance: Findings From a Mixed-Methods Study.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The article examines whether subjective performance assessments from health system executives match objective performance assessments and qualitatively explores ways to achieve high performance. We interviewed 138 C-suite executives of 24 health systems in California, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin between 2017 and 2019. We used maximum variation sampling to select health systems to achieve diversity in performance on objective measures of clinical performance. Our interviews focused on executives' perceptions of their own health system's performance and factors they thought generally contributed to high performance. In our analysis, we grouped health systems based on objective performance levels (high, medium, and low) used in sampling, compared objective performance ratings with executives' subjective performance assessments, and used thematic analysis to identify reasons for subjective assessment of health system performance and levers of high performance in general. There was poor agreement between objective and subjective performance assessments (kappa = 0.082). Subjective assessments were higher than objective assessments and captured more factors than are typically considered in performance accountability and value-based payment initiatives. Executives whose views were inconsistent with objective performance assessments did not cite clinical care quality per se as the basis for their assessment, focusing instead on market competition, financial performance, and high customer satisfaction and loyalty. Executives who cited clinical quality metrics as the basis of their assessment offered subjective ratings consistent with objective ratings. Executives identified organizational culture, organizational governance, and staff engagement as levers for achieving high performance. Future research should explore the benefits and drawbacks of considering subjective performance assessments in value-based payment initiatives.

Are health systems redesigning how health care is delivered?

OBJECTIVE: To explore why and how health systems are engaging in care delivery redesign (CDR)-defined as the variety of tools and organizational change processes health systems use to pursue the Triple Aim. STUDY SETTING: A purposive sample of 24 health systems across 4 states as part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Comparative Health System Performance Initiative. STUDY DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative study design to gain an "on the ground" understanding of health systems' motivations for, and approaches to, CDR, with the goals of identifying key dimensions of CDR, and gauging the depth of change that is possible based on the particular approaches to redesign care being adopted by the health systems. DATA COLLECTION: Semi-structured telephone interviews with health system executives and physician organization leaders from 24 health systems (n = 162). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identify and define 13 CDR activities and find that the health systems' efforts are varied in terms of both the combination of activities they are engaging in and the depth of innovation within each activity. Health system executives who report strong internal motivation for their CDR efforts describe more confidence in their approach to CDR than those who report strong external motivation. Health system leaders face uncertainty when implementing CDR due to a limited evidence base and because of the slower than expected pace of payment change. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to validly and reliably measure CDR activities-particularly across varying organizational contexts and markets-is currently limited but is key to better understanding CDR's impact on intended outcomes, which is important for guiding both health system decision making and policy making.

Understanding how health systems facilitate primary care redesign.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how health systems are facilitating primary care redesign (PCR), examine the PCR initiatives taking place within systems, and identify barriers to this work. STUDY SETTING: A purposive sample of 24 health systems in 4 states. STUDY DESIGN: Data were systematically reviewed to identify how system leaders define and implement initiatives to redesign primary care delivery and identify challenges. Researchers applied codes which were based on the theoretical PCR literature and created new codes to capture emerging themes. Investigators analyzed coded data then produced and applied a thematic analysis to examine how health systems facilitate PCR. DATA COLLECTION: Semi-structured telephone interviews with 162 system executives and physician organization leaders from 24 systems. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Leaders at all 24 health systems described initiatives to redesign the delivery of primary care, but many were in the early stages. Respondents described the use of centralized health system resources to facilitate PCR initiatives, such as regionalized care coordinators, and integrated electronic health records. Team-based care, population management, and care coordination were the most commonly described initiatives to transform primary care delivery. Respondents most often cited improving efficiency and enhancing clinician job satisfaction, as motivating factors for team-based care. Changes in payment and risk assumption as well as community needs were commonly cited motivators for population health management and care coordination. Return on investment and the slower than anticipated rate in moving from fee-for-service to value-based payment were noted by multiple respondents as challenges health systems face in redesigning primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Given their expanding role in health care and the potential to leverage resources, health systems are promising entities to promote the advancement of PCR. Systems demonstrate interest and engagement in this work but face significant challenges in getting to scale until payment models are in alignment with these efforts.

The importance of understanding and measuring health system structural, functional, and clinical integration.

OBJECTIVE: We explore if there are ways to characterize health systems-not already revealed by secondary data-that could provide new insights into differences in health system performance. We sought to collect rich qualitative data to reveal whether and to what extent health systems vary in important ways across dimensions of structural, functional, and clinical integration. DATA SOURCES: Interviews with 162 c-suite executives of 24 health systems in four states conducted through "virtual" site visits between 2017 and 2019. STUDY DESIGN: Exploratory study using thematic comparative analysis to describe factors that may lead to high performance. DATA COLLECTION: We used maximum variation sampling to achieve diversity in size and performance. We conducted, transcribed, coded, and analyzed in-depth, semi-structured interviews with system executives, covering such topics as market context, health system origin, organizational structure, governance features, and relationship of health system to affiliated hospitals and POs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Health systems vary widely in size and ownership type, complexity of organization and governance arrangements, and ability to take on risk. Structural, functional, and clinical integration vary across systems, with considerable activity around centralizing business functions, aligning financial incentives with physicians, establishing enterprise-wide EHR, and moving toward single signatory contracting. Executives describe clinical integration as more difficult to achieve, but essential. Studies that treat "health system" as a binary variable may be inappropriately aggregating for analysis health systems of very different types, at different degrees of maturity, and at different stages of structural, functional, and clinical integration. As a result, a "signal" indicating performance may be distorted by the "noise." CONCLUSIONS: Developing ways to account for the complex structures of today's health systems can enhance future efforts to study systems as complex organizations, to assess their performance, and to better understand the effects of payment innovation, care redesign, and other reforms.

Optimizing health IT to improve health system performance: A work in progress.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant investments in health information technology (IT), the technology has not yielded the intended performance effects or transformational change. We describe activities that health systems are pursuing to better leverage health IT to improve performance. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with C-suite executives from 24 U.S. health systems in four states during 2017-2019 and analyzed the data using a qualitative thematic approach. RESULTS: Health systems reported two broad categories of activities: laying the foundation to improve performance with IT and using IT to improve performance. Within these categories, health systems were engaged in similar activities but varied greatly in their progress. The most substantial effort was devoted to the first category, which enabled rather than directly improved performance, and included consolidating to a single electronic health record (EHR) platform and common data across the health system, standardizing data elements, and standardizing care processes before using the EHR to implement them. Only after accomplishing such foundational activities were health systems able to focus on using the technology to improve performance through activities such as using data and analytics to monitor and provide feedback, improving uptake of evidence-based medicine, addressing variation and overuse, improving system-wide prevention and population health management, and making care more convenient. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Leveraging IT to improve performance requires significant and sustained effort by health systems, in addition to significant investments in hardware and software. To accelerate change, better mechanisms for creating and disseminating best practices and providing advanced technical assistance are needed.

What Are the Determinants of Health System Performance? Findings from the Literature and a Technical Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: The US health care system is the most expensive in the world, but it lags behind many other industrialized nations on multiple measures of effectiveness and quality. This poor performance may have played a role in the push to incentivize health care organizations to achieve high performance over a range of domains. Research is needed to understand the determinants of health system performance. METHODS: To identify key attributes of health systems associated with performance, a literature review was conducted. The characteristics identified were compiled into a Web-based rating instrument for use with a Technical Expert Panel composed of leaders in health systems and health services research. A modified Delphi process was initiated using three rounds to develop group consensus. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus on nine broad areas important to health system performance. Panelists also rated which specific attributes within those domains were predictive of performance. Panelists tended to rate the kind of characteristics used in past research (such as size, ownership, and profit status) as only somewhat or not at all important, while rating aspects of culture, leadership, and business execution as very important. CONCLUSION: There is limited empirical evidence and understanding of factors associated with health system performance. This study illustrates the value of using a modified Delphi process to bring experiential evidence to the task. These findings may help researchers refine their data collection efforts, policy makers craft better policies to incentivize high performance, and health leaders build better systems.

Understanding U.S. Health Systems: Using Mixed Methods to Unpack Organizational Complexity.

INTRODUCTION: As hospitals and physician organizations increasingly vertically integrate, there is an important opportunity to use health systems to improve performance. Prior research has largely relied on secondary data sources, but little is known about how health systems are organized "on the ground" and what mechanisms are available to influence physician practice at the front line of care. METHODS: We collected in-depth information on eight health systems through key informant interviews, descriptive surveys, and document review. Qualitative data were systematically coded. We conducted analyses to identify organizational structures and mechanisms through which health systems influence practice. RESULTS: As expected, we found that health systems vary on multiple dimensions related to organizational structure (e.g., size, complexity) which reflects history, market and mission. With regard to levers of influence, we observed within-system variation both in mechanisms (e.g., employment of physicians, system-wide EHR, standardization of service lines) and level of influence. Concepts such as "core" versus "peripheral" were more salient than "ownership" versus "contract." DISCUSSION: Data from secondary sources can help identify and map health systems, but they do not adequately describe them or the variation that exists within and across systems. To examine the degree to which health systems can influence performance, more detailed and nuanced information on health system characteristics is necessary. CONCLUSION: The mixed-methods data accrual approach used in this study provides granular qualitative data that enables researchers to describe multi-layered health systems, grasp the context in which they operate, and identify the key drivers of performance.

Defining and Evaluating Patient-Empowered Approaches to Improving Record Matching.

Despite widespread adoption of electronic health records and increasing exchange of health care data, the benefits of interoperability and health information technology have been hampered by the inability to reliably match patients and their records. The Pew Charitable Trusts contracted with the RAND Corporation to investigate "patient-empowered" approaches to record matching-solutions that have some additional, voluntary role for patients beyond simply supplying demographics to their health care providers-and to select a promising solution for further development and pilot testing. After extensive consultation with a variety of experts, researchers did not identify a "silver bullet" or achieve consensus on a single solution. Instead, this study recommends adopting a three-stage approach that aims to improve the quality of identity information, establish new smartphone app functionality to facilitate bidirectional exchange of identity information and health care data between patients and providers, and create advanced functionality to further improve value. The study also suggests that because the solution contains multiple components involving diverse stakeholders, a governance mechanism likely will be needed to provide leadership, track pilot tests, and evaluation, as well as to convene key stakeholders to build consensus where consensus is needed.

Are value-based incentives driving behavior change to improve value?

OBJECTIVES: To understand physician organization (PO) responses to financial incentives for quality and total cost of care among POs that were exposed to a statewide multipayer value-based payment (VBP) program, and to identify challenges that POs face in advancing the goals of VBP. STUDY DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interviews and survey. METHODS: We drew a stratified random sample of 40 multispecialty California POs (25% of the POs that were eligible for incentives). In-person interviews were conducted with physician leaders and a survey was administered on actions being taken to reduce costs and redesign care and to discuss the challenges to improving value. We performed a thematic analysis of interview transcripts to identify common actions taken and challenges to reducing costs. RESULTS: VBP helps to promote care delivery transformation among POs, although efforts varied across organizations. Investments are occurring primarily in strategies to control hospital costs and redesign primary care, particularly for chronically ill patients; specialty care redesign is largely absent. Physician payment incentives for value remain small relative to total compensation, with continued emphasis on productivity. Challenges cited include the lack of a single enterprisewide electronic health records platform for information exchange, limited ability to influence specialists who were not exclusive to the organization, lack of payer cost and utilization data to manage costs, inability to recoup care redesign investments given the small size of VBP incentives, and lack of physician cost awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Transformation could be advanced by strengthening financial incentives for value; engaging specialists in care redesign and delivering value; enhancing partnerships among POs, hospitals, and payers to align quality and cost actions; strengthening information exchange across providers; and applying other strategies to influence physician behavior.

Level of agreement on health information technology adoption and use in survey data: a mixed-methods analysis of ambulatory clinics in 1 US state.

OBJECTIVE: Adoption of health information technology (HIT) is often assessed in surveys of organizations. The validity of data from such surveys for ambulatory clinics has not been evaluated. We compared level of agreement between 1 ambulatory statewide survey and 2 other data sources: a second survey and interviews with survey respondents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used 2016 data from 2 surveys of ambulatory providers in Minnesota-the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) survey and the Minnesota HIT Ambulatory Clinic Survey-and primary data collected through qualitative interviews with survey respondents. We conducted a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods assessment of the Minnesota HIT survey by assessing level of agreement between it and HIMSS, and a thematic analysis of interview data to assess the respondent's understanding of what was being asked and their approach to responding. RESULTS: We find high agreement between the 2 surveys on questions related to common HIT functionalities-such as computerized provider order entry, medication-based decision support, and e-prescribing-which were widely adopted by respondents' organizations. Qualitative data suggest respondents found wording of items about these functionalities clear but encountered multiple challenges including interpreting items for less commonly adopted functionalities, estimating degree of HIT usage, and indicating relevant barriers. Respondents identified multiple errors in responses and likely reported greater within-group homogeneity than actually existed. CONCLUSIONS: Survey items related to the presence or absence of widely adopted HIT functionalities may be more valid than items about less common functionalities, degree of usage, and barriers.

Developing and Testing the Health Care Safety Hotline: A Prototype Consumer Reporting System for Patient Safety Events.

This article describes the design, development, and testing of the Health Care Safety Hotline, a prototype consumer reporting system for patient safety events. The prototype was designed and developed with ongoing review by a technical expert panel and feedback obtained during a public comment period. Two health care delivery organizations in one metropolitan area collaborated with the researchers to demonstrate and evaluate the system. The prototype was deployed and elicited information from patients, family members, and caregivers through a website or an 800 phone number. The reports were considered useful and had little overlap with information received by the health care organizations through their usual risk management, customer service, and patient safety monitoring systems. However, the frequency of reporting was lower than anticipated, suggesting that further refinements, including efforts to raise awareness by actively soliciting reports from subjects, might be necessary to substantially increase the volume of useful reports. It is possible that a single technology platform could be built to meet a variety of different patient safety objectives, but it may not be possible to achieve several objectives simultaneously through a single consumer reporting system while also establishing trust with patients, caregivers, and providers.

Implementation and evaluation of a prototype consumer reporting system for patient safety events.

OBJECTIVE: No methodologically robust system exists for capturing consumer-generated patient safety reports. To address this challenge, we developed and pilot-tested a prototype consumer reporting system for patient safety, the Health Care Safety Hotline. DESIGN: Mixed methods evaluation. SETTING: The Hotline was implemented in two US healthcare systems from 1 February 2014 through 30 June 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Patients, family members and caregivers associated with two US healthcare systems. INTERVENTION: A consumer-oriented incident reporting system for telephone or web-based administration was developed to elicit medical mistakes and care-related injuries. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Key informant interviews, measurement of website traffic and analysis of completed reports. RESULTS: Key informants indicated that Hotline participation was motivated by senior leaders' support and alignment with existing quality and safety initiatives. During the measurement period from 1 October 2014 through 30 June 2015, the home page had 1530 visitors with a unique IP address. During its 17 months of operation, the Hotline received 37 completed reports including 20 mistakes without harm and 15 mistakes with injury. The largest category of mistake concerned problems with diagnosis or advice from a health practitioner. Hotline reports prompted quality reviews, an education intervention, and patient follow-ups. CONCLUSION: While generating fewer reports than its capacity to manage, the Health Care Safety Hotline demonstrated the feasibility of consumer-oriented patient safety reporting. Further research is needed to understand how to increase consumers' use of these systems.

Does a quality improvement campaign accelerate take-up of new evidence? A ten-state cluster-randomized controlled trial of the IHI's Project JOINTS.

BACKGROUND: A decade ago, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement pioneered a quality improvement (QI) campaign, leveraging organizational and personal social networks to disseminate new practices. There have been few rigorous studies of the QI campaign approach. METHODS: Project JOINTS (Joining Organizations IN Tackling SSIs) engaged a network of state-based organizations and professionals in a 6-month QI campaign promoting adherence to three new evidence-based practices known to reduce the risk of infection after joint replacement. We conducted a cluster-randomized trial including ten states (five campaign states and five non-campaign states) with 188 hospitals providing joint replacement to Medicare. We measured adherence to the evidence-based practices before and after the campaign using a survey of surgical staff and a difference-in-difference design with multivariable adjustment to compare adherence to each of the relevant practices and an all-or-none composite measure of the three new practices. RESULTS: In the campaign states, there were statistically significant increases in adherence to the three new evidence-based practices promoted by the campaign. Compared to the non-campaign states, the relative increase in adherence to the three new practices in the campaign states ranged between 1.9 and 15.9 percentage points, but only one of these changes (pre-operative nasal screening for Staphylococcus aureus carriage and decolonization prior to surgery) was statistically significant (p < 0.05). On the all-or-none composite measure, adherence to all three evidence-based practices increased from 19.6 to 37.9% in the campaign states, but declined slightly in the comparison states, yielding a relative increase of 23 percentage points (p = 0.004). In the non-campaign states, changes in adherence were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Within 6 months, in a cluster-randomized trial, a multi-state campaign targeting hospitals and professionals involved in surgical care and infection control was associated with an increase in adherence to evidence-based practices that can reduce surgical site infection.

Progress at the Intersection of Patient Safety and Medical Liability: Insights from the AHRQ Patient Safety and Medical Liability Demonstration Program.

OBJECTIVE: To identify lessons learned from the experience of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety and Medical Liability (PSML) Demonstration Program. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: On September 9, 2009, President Obama directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to authorize demonstration projects that put "patient safety first" with the intent of reducing preventable adverse outcomes and stemming liability costs. Seven demonstration projects received 3 years of funding from AHRQ in the summer of 2010, and the program formally came to a close in June 2015. STUDY DESIGN: The seven grantees implemented complex, broad-ranging innovations addressing both patient safety and medical liability in "real-world" contexts. Some projects featured novel approaches, while others implemented adaptations of existing models. Each project was funded by AHRQ to collect data on the impact of its interventions. In addition, AHRQ funded a cross-cutting qualitative evaluation focused on lessons learned in implementing PSML interventions. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Site visits and follow-up interviews supplemented with material abstracted from formal project reports to AHRQ. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The PSML demonstration projects focused on three broad approaches: (1) improving communication around adverse events through disclosure and resolution programs; (2) preventing harm through implementation of clinical "best practices"; and (3) exploring alternative methods of settling claims. Although the demonstration contributed to accumulating evidence that these kinds of interventions can positively affect outcomes, there is also evidence to suggest that these interventions can be difficult to scale. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to producing at least preliminary positive outcomes, the demonstration also lends credence to the idea that targeted interventions that improve some aspect of patient safety or malpractice performance may also contribute more broadly to institutional culture and the alignment of all parties around reducing risk and preventing harm. However, more empirical work needs to be carried out to quantify the effect of such interventions.

Project JOINTS: what factors affect bundle adoption in a voluntary quality improvement campaign?

BACKGROUND: Diffusion and adoption of effective evidence-based clinical practices can be slow, especially if complex changes are required to implement new practices. OBJECTIVE: To examine how hospital adherence to quality improvement (QI) methods and hospital engagement with a large-scale QI campaign could facilitate the adoption of an enhanced prevention bundle designed to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) rates after orthopaedic surgery (hip and knee arthroplasty). METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews with hospital QI leaders from 73 of the 109 hospitals (67% response rate) in five states that participated in Project JOINTS (Joining Organizations IN Tackling SSIs), a QI campaign run by Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI). Using QI methods grounded in the IHI Model for Improvement, this campaign encouraged hospitals to implement an enhanced SSI prevention bundle. Hospital QI leaders reported on their hospital's adherence to the Project JOINTS QI methods; their level of engagement with Project JOINTS activities; and adoption of the SSI prevention bundle components. Interview data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: Both adherence to the QI methods and hospital engagement were positively associated with complete bundle adoption. Hospital engagement, especially the use of project materials and tools, was also positively associated with the initiation of and improved adherence to individual bundle components. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that greater adherence to the QI methods and active hospital engagement in a QI campaign facilitate adoption of evidence-based patient safety bundles in orthopaedic practice.

The effect of malpractice reform on emergency department care.

BACKGROUND: Many believe that fear of malpractice lawsuits drives physicians to order otherwise unnecessary care and that legal reforms could reduce such wasteful spending. Emergency physicians practice in an information-poor, resource-rich environment that may lend itself to costly defensive practice. Three states, Texas (in 2003), Georgia (in 2005), and South Carolina (in 2005), enacted legislation that changed the malpractice standard for emergency care to gross negligence. We investigated whether these substantial reforms changed practice. METHODS: Using a 5% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we identified all emergency department visits to hospitals in the three reform states and in neighboring (control) states from 1997 through 2011. Using a quasi-experimental design, we compared patient-level outcomes, before and after legislation, in reform states and control states. We controlled for characteristics of the patients, time-invariant hospital characteristics, and temporal trends. Outcomes were policy-attributable changes in the use of computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), per-visit emergency department charges, and the rate of hospital admissions. RESULTS: For eight of the nine state-outcome combinations tested, no policy-attributable reduction in the intensity of care was detected. We found no reduction in the rates of CT or MRI utilization or hospital admission in any of the three reform states and no reduction in charges in Texas or South Carolina. In Georgia, reform was associated with a 3.6% reduction (95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 6.2) in per-visit emergency department charges. CONCLUSIONS: Legislation that substantially changed the malpractice standard for emergency physicians in three states had little effect on the intensity of practice, as measured by imaging rates, average charges, or hospital admission rates. (Funded by the Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations and others.).

Bundled payment fails to gain a foothold In California: the experience of the IHA bundled payment demonstration.

To determine whether bundled payment could be an effective payment model for California, the Integrated Healthcare Association convened a group of stakeholders (health plans, hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, physician organizations, and vendors) to develop, through a consensus process, the methods and means of implementing bundled payment. In spite of a high level of enthusiasm and effort, the pilot did not succeed in its goal to implement bundled payment for orthopedic procedures across multiple payers and hospital-physician partners. An evaluation of the pilot documented a number of barriers, such as administrative burden, state regulatory uncertainty, and disagreements about bundle definition and assumption of risk. Ultimately, few contracts were signed, which resulted in insufficient volume to test hypotheses about the impact of bundled payment on quality and costs. Although bundled payment failed to gain a foothold in California, the evaluation provides lessons for future bundled payment initiatives.