Health status measures offer scientific, humanistic, and economic benefits for clinical medicine. The main problem is the many intellectual and pragmatic obstacles that block successful development of these measures. The inventory of such problems includes the following: definition of health; medical components of health status; who makes the choice about what to include and emphasize; attributes to be rated by patients or clinicians; indexes to be created from those attributes (including mega-variable indexes, global indexes, and oligo-category indexes); different measurements of the same entity; and clinimetric problems in nonclinimetric models. Several solutions to these multiple, complex difficulties can be offered: 1) ensure that a specific purpose, focus, and setting are clearly identified for every health status index; 2) recognize that an off-the-shelf index with high statistical scores for so-called reliability and validity may not be pertinent for a given current situation in which it is to be used; 3) avoid indexes involving combinations of excessive numbers of variables; 4) let patients choose the most significant foci and components of the indexes; 5) seek greater communication and understanding among multidisciplinary collaborators, who may have many differences in the ethos and goals with which they approach the construction of health status indexes; and 6) recognize that the construction of suitable health status indexes is an outstanding challenge in basic scientific inquiry, and, in this spirit, support major alterations in the current ideology for conceptualization and funding of what is basic science in clinical medicine.