Nearly 4 decades after first describing the structure-process-outcome framework for assessing quality in health care, Dr. Avedis Donabedian outlined some of the shortfalls in his own care during an interview published in Health Affairs. 1,2 Treated earlier in his life for prostate cancer, Donabedian was diagnosed with bladder cancer years later after worsening urinary symptoms and episodes of urinary obstruction, infections, and renal failure led to the detection of a tumor in his bladder. Urine cytology, commonly used to evaluate a patient for bladder cancer, was performed at some point before the diagnosis but went unchecked for months (James Montie, MD, oral communication). The results were abnormal. Donabedian ultimately had his bladder removed, and he lived the remaining few years of his life with "lots of permanent tubes and pouches." 2 He died on November 9, 2000 of metastatic cancer. 3 In the 14 years since Donabedian's death, the quality landscape has changed markedly and has moved from a more general awareness of quality chasms in health care to broader policy efforts designed to proactively assess quality and improve care. [4][5][6][7][8] Central to these efforts, the best way to measure quality is as pertinent a question today as it was in 2000. Resoundingly, however, structure, process, and outcome measures that evaluate the context and setting of care, the way in which care is delivered, and the effects of that care have become the main linchpins in quality assessment and improvement programs. To date, the National Quality Forum has vetted and endorsed more than 460 quality indicators, 9 many of which underpin high-profile quality improvement programs such as the Physician Quality Reporting System and the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 10,11 Within the realm of urology, National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measures have been limited mainly to urinary incontinence and prostate cancer thus far. 9 Bladder cancer quality indicators have been proposed by some groups, but they have not yet been adopted or implemented into actionable measures at a national level. 12,13 In this issue of Cancer, Chamie et al 14 further probe quality gaps in the management of bladder cancer. Leveraging the Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry and supporting information abstracted from operative and pathology reports, they critically evaluate and link a meaningful and probably inarguable measure of quality-the presence of muscle on endoscopic biopsy/resection-to outcome, in this case, mortality, on a relatively large scale. Adequate muscle sampling at the time of transurethral bladder tumor resection has been examined in a number of prior studies and linked to an increased risk of understaging and higher rates of disease recurrence. 15,16 As a result, ensuring adequate muscle sampling during bladder tumor resection has become a standard principle across bladder cancer guidelines, particularly in the setting of invasive high-gr...