T he Lancet Commission report on COVID-19 recently described a "staggering" death toll (approaching 7 million at the time of writing) 1 and declared the pandemic response "a massive global failure at multiple levels." 2 How did this tragedy happen-and to what extent did primary care help or hinder?There is no simple answer to that question, partly because at the outset, policy makers and planners in many (though not all) settings failed to recognize or factor in the potential contribution that primary care could make, and partly because researchers have to some extent overlooked the opportunity to measure what contribution it actually made. The story is that, broadly speaking, primary care stepped forward and did its best-providing assessment and triage of individuals with suspected acute COVID-19 (often remotely), vaccination, management of post-COVID symptoms, and essential ongoing services such as long-term condition reviews-but that this effort was largely reactive rather than a strategic and proactive component of a national system-wide response, and it failed fully to compensate for dramatic reductions in careseeking behavior and socioeconomic inequities. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] In 2005, Professor Barbara Starfield and colleagues published a foundational paper entitled "The Contribution of Primary Care to Health Systems and Health." 11 Drawing on the then World Health Organization's definition, they characterized good primary care as made up of 4 main elementsfirst-contact access for each new need; long-term person-(as opposed to disease-) focused care; comprehensive care within the primary care team for most health needs; and coordination of care when the patient is referred beyond that team. They added 2 supplementary elements-orientation to both the family and the community.These 6 features formed the basis of Starfield et al's Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT). In their 2005 paper, they applied the PCAT to the health systems of multiple countries. After controlling for potential confounders (notably income inequality and smoking rate), Starfield et al