What Actually Makes a Healthcare System Work?

A Commentary on the Building Blocks of High-Performing Systems of Care.

‍Introduction.

‍Every generation of well-intentioned health system reformers arrives at the same uncomfortable discovery: spending more money on healthcare service delivery does not reliably improve patients' health and well-being. The United States, which spends a larger share of its gross domestic product on healthcare than any other country in the world, consistently underperforms peer high-income nations on life expectancy, preventable mortality, and measures of health system equity; countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan—despite differing financing models—achieve better population health outcomes at substantially lower cost. (OECD 2025; Commonwealth Fund 2024) The question is not whether to invest in healthcare, but what to invest in.

‍The World Health Organization (WHO) has long addressed this challenge through its six–building block framework for health system strengthening—encompassing service delivery; the health workforce; health information systems; access to essential medicines, vaccines, and technologies; financing; and leadership and governance—which has guided system analysis and reform across low-, middle-, and high-income countries for nearly two decades. (WHO 2007)

‍That framework remains foundational. But it is incomplete. The empirical evidence accumulated since its introduction in 2007 suggests that truly high-performing health systems share a broader and more integrated set of characteristics than any six-domain checklist can capture. This perspective advances an expanded systems-based framework of twelve interrelated building blocks situated at the intersection of health systems science, primary health care research, health equity justice, and emerging empirical insights from learning health systems. It argues that health system performance depends less on the presence of any single component than on the degree of alignment among them as a whole.

‍The Foundation: Person-centered Primary Care and Equitable Access.

‍Barbara Starfield's revolutionary health services research in primary care established what reformers had long suspected but struggled to quantify: healthcare systems built on a strong primary care foundation consistently produce better population health outcomes, more equitable distributions of health and well-being, and lower per-capita costs than health systems oriented primarily around specialty and hospital care. (Starfield, Shi, and Macinko 2005)

‍This is not a technical observation but a structural indictment — one that forces a harder question about what healthcare is actually for. A complex, open, and adaptive healthcare system organized around first-contact access, continuity of the patient–provider relationship, comprehensive whole-person care, and coordination across specialist and community services is, by design, one that engages patients with cultural humility and empathy rather than treating them as episodic indicators of acute and chronic disease. Barbara Starfield described these as the “four Cs,” and they remain among the most consistently validated attributes of high-quality primary care today.

‍Equitable access is the necessary companion to strengthening primary care. A system with excellent primary care that is unevenly distributed—geographically, economically, racially—is not a high-performing system. It is a well-performing system for some people. The distinction is consequential both ethically and practically: systems that permit wide inequities in access tend to generate costly downstream effects—such as avoidable emergency department use, late-stage disease presentation, and the cumulative harms of delayed care— disproportionately borne by the populations least equipped to absorb them.

‍Person-centered care, the broader care model at the point of service within which primary care is situated, extends these principles by emphasizing shared decision-making, cultural humility, empathy, and responsiveness to individual needs, preferences, and values. It also incorporates meaningful community engagement in governance and priority setting, ensuring that essential healthcare services and public health practice reflect the values and everyday experiences of the populations they serve. Medical care is situated within the social and relational contexts of patients' lives—recognizing that health behaviors, access, and outcomes are shaped by family structures, community networks, and the social determinants that govern how and when people seek care (Batalden et al. 2016).

‍The Scaffolding: Governance, Workforce, and Informatics.

‍Three structural pillars hold high-performing health systems upright even as external conditions change: effective governance, a capable, healthy, and well-distributed workforce, and robust health information infrastructure.

‍Governance, in the WHO framework, encompasses the stewardship functions of a health system—the strategic policy frameworks combined with effective oversight, coalition-building, regulation, attention to system design, and accountability that give a system its direction and clarity. (WHO 2007)

‍In practice, governance quality is visible in the stability of long-term policy direction, the transparency of decision-making processes, the meaningfulness of community and stakeholder engagement and empowerment, and the degree to which health system leaders are held accountable for population health outcomes rather than merely for institutional financial performance. Systems that lack these features tend to be reactive rather than strategic, fragmented rather than integrated, and captured by provider or payer interests rather than oriented toward the best interests of the public commons.

‍ The workforce dimension is similarly complex. No technology, payment model, or organizational design can substitute for an adequate supply of appropriately trained, equitably distributed, and professionally resilient clinicians and public health practitioners. Workforce shortages in rural and underserved areas worldwide remain among the most stubborn failures of contemporary health systems, and their effects are not contained — they weaken every other component of the framework.

‍Health information infrastructure is the medium through which coordinated care becomes operationally possible. Interoperable electronic health records, population health analytics, real-time surveillance systems, and digital access tools for both patients and providers are not merely technical enhancements; they enable information to move with the patient across settings and over time. This continuity of data supports safer clinical decision-making, reduces duplication and fragmentation, and allows care teams to anticipate patients’ needs rather than react to crises. At the system level, these capabilities underpin performance measurement, continuous quality improvement, and adaptive learning—allowing organizations to identify gaps, test interventions, and scale what works. In this sense, a robust health information infrastructure is a prerequisite for integrated learning and accountable system performance that consistently characterizes high-performing health systems.

‍The Incentive Architecture: Financing, Quality, and Continuous Learning.

‍ Few structural features shape what a healthcare system produces more than how it is financed and how revenue flows through it. Fee-for-service payment—still dominant in many settings, especially in the United States—rewards volume rather than value, discourages prevention and care coordination, and creates incentives for overtreatment while undervaluing the long-term relationships and population-level stewardship that actually improve the health and well-being of patients and their communities.

‍Reforming payment to reward value, positive outcomes, and care coordination rather than volume alone is now broadly recognized as a structural imperative. But the reform literature also contains a warning: payment reform that fails to account for health equity can perversely penalize the very providers serving the most vulnerable populations, since performance metrics that reward clinical outcomes on absolute rather than equity-adjusted terms systematically disadvantage safety-net providers. (Navathe and Liao 2022)

‍Together, continuous quality improvement measurement and public accountability function as the feedback loop through which financing incentives are calibrated and system performance is made visible. By defining what is measured—clinical outcomes, patient experience, equity, safety, and cost—these mechanisms signal priorities, shape provider behavior, and inform value-based payment models. Transparent reporting enables patients, communities, and policymakers to assess how well systems are performing, while internal quality improvement processes allow organizations to identify gaps in care, perform small tests of change, and refine care delivery incrementally over time. In this way, measurement and accountability do not merely document performance; they actively steer it, aligning financial incentives with the outcomes that matter most. The six quality domains defined by the Institute of Medicine (2001)—safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable care—remain the most widely accepted framework for defining what high-quality care means in today’s global healthcare systems.

‍The concept of the learning health system, introduced by the IOM in 2007 and greatly expanded since, adds a critical advanced dimension to the quality improvement framework. A learning system is one in which the evidence generated by every clinical encounter is systematically captured, analyzed, and fed back into practice improvement—a vision in which care delivery and knowledge generation are not sequential but simultaneous.

‍The barriers to designing and implementing a successful learning health system are not primarily technological. The harder work is cultural and organizational: building the institutional habits, leadership commitments, and professional norms that treat evidence generation as inseparable from care delivery. Systems that view data as a shared learning resource rather than a compliance requirement or administrative burden are better able to continuously adapt and improve. When information is actively used to inform decision-making, reflect on outcomes, and refine practice in real time, healthcare organizations develop a stronger capacity for evidence-responsive learning. This ongoing feedback process is what distinguishes sustained high performance from short-lived or episodic quality improvements.

The Upstream Context: Public Health and the Social Determinants.

‍The World Health Organization Commission on Social Determinants of Health (2008) established a foundational finding in modern public health: the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age are among the strongest drivers of health outcomes. These social determinants account for a larger share of population health variation than clinical healthcare alone can explain or meaningfully change. In other words, while healthcare services are essential for treating illness and managing disease, they are insufficient on their own to produce equitable or sustained improvements in population health and well-being without parallel attention to the broader social, economic, and environmental contexts that shape risk, resilience, and opportunity.

‍Michael Marmot’s subsequent work, including the Fair Society, Healthy Lives (2010) review and Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On (2020), further reinforced that reducing health inequities requires coordinated policy action across multiple sectors. He identified six key domains for action: early childhood development, education, employment and working conditions, income adequacy, healthy and sustainable environments, and disease prevention. Taken together, these domains underscore that the most powerful levers for improving population health lie largely outside the healthcare delivery system itself and depend instead on broader social and economic policy interventions.

‍High-performing healthcare systems do not treat this finding as an excuse for inaction. They treat it as a mandate for cross-sector collaboration. Screening for health-related social needs in clinical settings, linking patients to community resources, coordinating health system governance with housing, food, education, and transportation policies, and designing payment models that incentivize addressing root causes rather than only treating clinical outcomes are all practical ways a health system can act on the social determinants of health.

‍The integration of essential public health functions with traditional medical care is a closely related structural requirement for effective system performance and integrated service delivery. When public health is treated as a separate enterprise—funded independently, governed through different structures, and operating in parallel rather than in active partnership with clinical service delivery—health systems consistently show weaker capacity for disease surveillance and prevention, health promotion, health protection, emergency preparedness and response, and population health management. This fragmentation limits the ability to detect emerging risks early, coordinate responses across care settings, and address upstream determinants of disease in an understandable way. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed structural weaknesses in health system governance and information infrastructure, revealing how fragmented decision-making and disconnected data systems can undermine coordinated response capacity, with significant consequences for both population health outcomes and economic performance (OECD 2023; Haldane et al. 2021; Chen 2020).

‍The Alignment Argument.

‍The twelve building blocks across these four themes are not separate items on a checklist. They work together as parts of a single system, and their overall performance depends on how well they are aligned and coordinated. In other words, health system performance comes from how the parts fit and work together, not from improving each part in isolation. This is an important distinction, but one that health policy has often been slow to apply, with reforms still tending to focus on isolated changes rather than system-wide integration as-a-whole.

‍Today, most healthcare reform is designed in silos—one payment reform here, a workforce initiative there, a quality reporting requirement somewhere else—without enough attention to how these changes interact with the broader systems they enter. As a result, reforms often produce limited, uneven, or short-lived effects. Accountable care organizations may achieve modest cost reductions without meaningful gains in equity; electronic health records can improve documentation while straining the clinician–patient relationship; and pay-for-performance programs may encourage metric gaming rather than true improvements in care quality.

‍A complex systems view of health system performance suggests this pattern is predictable: interventions that target one part of a poorly aligned system often trigger compensatory effects elsewhere, which reduces their overall impact (Rutter et al. 2017).

‍The solution is not sweeping, all-at-once reform, which often fails due to its scale and complexity. Instead, it is aligned reform: paying attention to how different interventions interact and ensuring that improvements in one area do not create problems in another. This means asking better, connected questions. Does a payment model reduce spending—and does it do so while strengthening primary care, improving equity, and supporting the workforce? Does a digital health tool improve care coordination—and is it also accessible, useful for learning, and governed in a way that is accountable to the public? In this way, the framework acts as a relational guide, helping policymakers consider how changes work together as-a-whole rather than in isolation.

‍Conclusion.

Healthcare systems that consistently produce better outcomes, lower costs, greater equity, and higher public trust are not better because they have mastered any one building block. They are better because they have attended to all twelve, and because their governance, financing, workforce, and information systems pull in the same positive direction.

‍The United States and many comparable healthcare systems worldwide are not facing a knowledge deficit about what high-performing care requires. The empirical evidence is extensive and largely both valid and reliable. What is lacking is the political and organizational determination and grit to align systems around what the empirical evidence shows. That alignment—across person-centeredness and primary care, governance and workforce, financing and quality, public health and the social determinants—is the actual work of health system improvement. The building blocks framework only offers a map for guidance in the pursuit of achieving a high-performing, strong healthcare delivery system.

References.

1.     Batalden, Maren, Paul Batalden, Peter Margolis, Michael Seid, Gail Armstrong, Lisa Opipari-Arrigan, and Hans Hartung. 2016. "Coproduction of Healthcare Service." BMJ Quality & Safety 25 (7): 509–517. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004315.

‍2.     Chen, Andrew T.-Y. “How Fragmentation Can Undermine the Public Health Response to COVID-19.” arXiv preprint, 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.06279

‍3.     Commission on Social Determinants of Health. 2008. Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

‍4.     Commonwealth Fund. Mirror, Mirror 2024: Comparing Health Systems Across High-Income Countries. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 2024.

‍5.     Foo, Chuan De, Lim Ying Xian, Su Yunting, Narayanan Kala, Nawi Ng, Supa Pengpid, Iva Miljković, et al. 2025. "Starfield's 4Cs of NCD Management in Primary Healthcare: A Conceptual Framework Development from a Case Study of 19 Countries." BMJ Global Health 10 (1): e017578. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017578.

‍6.     Haldane, Victoria, et al. “Health Systems Resilience in Managing the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons from 28 Countries.” Nature Medicine 27 (2021): 964–980. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01381-y

‍ 7.     Institute of Medicine. 2001. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

‍8.     Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine. 2007. The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary. Edited by Leigh Anne Olsen, Dara Aisner, and J. Michael McGinnis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. PMID: 21452449.

‍9.     Marmot, Michael, Jessica Allen, Peter Goldblatt, Tammy Boyce, Di McNeish, Mike Grady, and Ilaria Geddes. 2010. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review. Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England Post-2010. London: The Marmot Review.

‍10.  Marmot, Michael, Jessica Allen, Tammy Boyce, Peter Goldblatt, and Joana Morrison. 2020. Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On. London: Institute of Health Equity.

‍ ‍11.  Marmot, Michael, Sharon Friel, Ruth Bell, Tanja A. J. Houweling, and Sebastian Taylor, on behalf of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. 2008. "Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health." Lancet 372 (9650): 1661–1669. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61690-6.

‍12.  Navathe, Amol S., and Joshua M. Liao. 2022. "Aligning Value-Based Payments with Health Equity: A Framework for Reforming Payment Reforms." JAMA 328 (10): 925–926. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.14606.

‍13.  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Ready for the Next Crisis? Investing in Health System Resilience. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1787/1e53cf80-en

‍ 14.  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Health at a Glance 2025: United States Country Note. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2025. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025_15a55280-en/united-states_3517f35e-en.html

15.  Rajkumar, Rahul, Patrick H. Conway, and Marilyn Tavenner. 2014. "CMS—Engaging Multiple Payers in Payment Reform." JAMA 311 (19): 1967–1968. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.3703 ‍

16.  Rutter, Harry, Natalie Savona, Ketevan Glonti, Jo Bibby, Steven Cummins, Diane T. Finegood, Felix Greaves, et al. 2017. "The Need for a Complex Systems Model of Evidence for Public Health." Lancet 390 (10112): 2602–2604. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31267-9. ‍

17.  Starfield, Barbara, Leiyu Shi, and James Macinko. 2005. "Contribution of Primary Care to Health Systems and Health." Milbank Quarterly 83 (3): 457–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x.

18.  World Health Organization. 2007. Everybody's Business: Strengthening Health Systems to Improve Health Outcomes. WHO's Framework for Action. Geneva: WHO.

‍ 19.  World Health Organization. 2024. Building Health System Resilience to Public Health Challenges: Guidance for Implementation in Countries. Geneva: WHO. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

‍ ‍