In Part 1 of this series, we explored the concept of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)—systems made up of many interacting parts whose behavior can’t be fully understood by examining individual components in isolation.
We introduced multilevel selection theory to understand how adaptation can occur across different layers—cells, individuals, teams, or institutions—and how what’s adaptive at one level may be disruptive at another.
In Part 2, we zoomed into the human body and mind. We examined how chronic pain, trauma, or emotional dysregulation often emerge from context-sensitive adaptations—patterns that were once helpful but became limiting when the environment changed.
We explored how meaningful change requires not more control, but conditions that support reorganization.
Now, in Part 3, we step back to explore another kind of body: the healthcare system itself. Like the human body, this system is adaptive. It responds to internal signals (policy changes, staffing shortages, budget cuts) and external demands (market forces, public health needs, political pressure).
But while it continues to evolve, it doesn’t always do so in ways that promote health, connection, or sustainability.
In many cases, healthcare has become a system that survives by exhausting the people inside it.
Healthcare systems are often praised for their complexity. But complexity alone doesn’t guarantee intelligence—or well-being. Just as in biology, a system can self-organize into patterns that protect its existence while undermining its function.
Hospitals, insurance providers, accreditation boards, electronic medical records (EMRs), and public policy bodies act like the organs of a larger organism. They communicate, respond, and adapt.
But ask almost any clinician, and they’ll tell you: this adaptation often feels one-sided. The system bends to preserve itself—revenue targets, liability protection, throughput quotas—even as it depletes the time, energy, and compassion of the people tasked with delivering care.
This isn’t the result of malice. It’s the result of misaligned adaptation. Just like a trauma response in the body can keep firing long after the threat is gone, institutions can become locked in patterns of overprotection, redundancy, and reactivity.
Bureaucracy grows. Burnout spreads. And slowly, the purpose of care is replaced by the procedures of care.
When a system organizes around self-preservation rather than service, its survival comes at the cost of its soul.
What started as regulation for safety becomes rigidity. What began as documentation for accountability becomes distraction. What was meant to protect becomes a barrier to connection.
Healthcare, like any other CAS, is shaped by what it responds to. And for many institutions, the signals it’s responding to—billing codes, liability fears, productivity metrics—are pulling it further away from the very thing it was built to serve: people.
In Part 1, we introduced multilevel selection theory—the idea that adaptation doesn’t just happen at the level of individuals. It also occurs at the level of groups, systems, and institutions.
The problem? Most healthcare systems are optimized for the wrong level. They reward departmental success, even when it fragments patient care.
Clinicians are evaluated based on productivity metrics, even when that compromises therapeutic alliance.
Policies aim to reduce costs per visit, even if that leads to higher costs per outcome.
What we reward is what we reinforce. And right now, many healthcare environments reward adaptation that benefits the system—but harms the people within it.
When throughput becomes the measure of success, the quality of presence suffers. When documentation becomes more important than dialogue, trust erodes.
When protocols are prioritized over relationships, we may check all the boxes and still miss the person in front of us.
These are not just policy failures. They are emergent patterns in a system under the wrong kind of pressure.
Multilevel selection tells us: if the system optimizes for its own metrics instead of collective well-being, competition will win out over cooperation—and fragmentation will be the result.
In biology, a system that grows by consuming its own regulatory safeguards is considered pathological. Cancer is the most well-known example—a process that evolves not from malfunction,
but from unchecked adaptation at the local level, without regard for the whole.
In many ways, our healthcare system exhibits a similar pathology.
Each part of the system—providers, administrators, payers, regulators—is adapting in response to pressures at its level.
But the result is not harmony. It’s exhaustion. Clinicians adapt by seeing more patients in less time. Patients adapt by seeking fragmented solutions.
Organizations adapt by outsourcing complexity to algorithms or protocols. The result isn’t a more intelligent system—it’s a more fragile one.
What we often call burnout is not an individual failure to cope. It is a collective signal that the system is asking too much from its agents—and offering too little support in return.
Burnout, moral injury, and turnover aren’t just symptoms of stress. They are indicators of systems that have lost alignment with their purpose.
In CAS terms, we’ve created CAS2 dynamics: agents adapting independently, often competitively, in ways that undermine coherence.
Clinicians pull in one direction, policy in another, patients in another still. There is no central “error” to fix—only a pattern to interrupt.
And because patterns are relational, the solution isn’t simply to “add wellness” or “train resilience.” It’s to change the conditions that shape how the system organizes itself in the first place.
If we take CAS theory seriously, then we must ask our healthcare systems the same kinds of questions we ask our patients:
What is this system organized around? What is it trying to protect? What signals is it listening to? And what relationships are being prioritized—and which ones are being ignored?
These questions don’t lead us toward standardized “best practices”; they lead us toward better patterns—ones that emerge not from top-down mandates, but from relationships that enable reorganization.
Imagine if healthcare systems, like the body, were allowed to become more responsive, not just more regulated.
What if we invested in feedback loops between front-line staff and leadership? What if we measured trust and coherence with the same rigor we apply to productivity?
What if we made room for learning—not just compliance?
Coherence doesn’t require perfect alignment. It means the parts of a system are communicating, adjusting, and working together toward shared goals.
This is the shift: from systems that survive by extracting, to systems that regenerate by investing in relationships.
The healthcare system doesn’t need another top-down reform. It needs a relational reset.
When we understand institutions as complex adaptive systems—not static hierarchies, but dynamic, living structures—we stop chasing fixes and start observing patterns.
We begin to see that the most enduring problems in healthcare—burnout, fragmentation, inequity—are not random failures.
They are logical outcomes of a system that has adapted to preserve itself more than the people within it.
But there is good news: just as with the human body, small shifts in relationship can catalyze large-scale transformation.
When we focus on process, not just policy, we begin to unlock new paths for change. When we prioritize coherence over control,
we create the conditions for innovation, integration, and healing.
This requires a mindset shift—from compliance to collaboration, from throughput to trust, from system survival to human sustainability.
It also calls on clinicians, administrators, educators, and communities to stop acting as disconnected parts and start forming
intentional, regenerative relationships across levels. Just like in a healthy nervous system, adaptation must be both local and global, fast and flexible, coordinated and contextual.
A regenerative healthcare system doesn’t ignore complexity—it learns from it. It doesn’t suppress variability—it channels it. And it doesn’t isolate problems—it restores relationships.
In the final post of this series, we’ll shift from analysis to action.
Together, we’ll explore what it means to build healthcare environments that are not only structurally sound, but regenerative, adaptive, and deeply human.
We’ll examine how system change emerges not just through reform, but through process innovation, cultural coherence, and shared purpose.
Because if we want to create systems that support life, we have to design them to behave more like living things.
Co-Founder
Functional Contextualism: A Philosophy for Making Sense (and Making Progress) Why worldview matters in healthcare, education, and systems of change In healthcare, clarity is rare — and coherence, rarer still. In the often chaotic world of healthcare and human development, we are constantly faced with competing ideas, approaches, and “truths.”…
Complex Adaptive Systems in Health – Part 4 From the Inside Out: Building Regenerative Systems Through Purpose, Process, and Collective Intelligence Intro: From Critique to Construction In the first three parts of this series, we explored how complexity shapes everything—from the inner workings of the body to the structures that…
Complex Adaptive Systems in Health – Part 3 Systemic Burnout: What Happens When Healthcare Stops Listening to Itself Intro & Recap (Bridging from Part 1 & Part 2) In Part 1 of this series, we explored the concept of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)—systems made up of many interacting parts…
