0 0 0 @T Grant founding (thrdugli 12-31-71) Nun-ber of grants 56 (5-@re-opera-tion-, h@er.of projects i@decl'o'ut'o'f 'gr'ants . . . . . .569 bomber of positions supported by grants . . . . . . 2,750' Projects level . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . $42.@2 M. Core si4pport: Administration and planning . . . . . . . . . .8.8 M.' Project support and assistance . . . . . . . .30.2 M. 39.@o M. Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 0 . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81. 2 @l. Emphasi s of P@IP Project lunds Patient care demonstrations, wEich di@ctly benefit patients . . . . . . . . . . . $15.4 M. 37%. Manpmver training and utilization . . . . . . . . . . 22.8 M. 54% Other activities such as commications Eeti-,vorks, improved patient record syste@ , and coordination of services . . . ... . . . 4.0 M. 9% The last t@o also lead to expanded and improved care, but ii-,,Iirectly . . . . . . . . . $42.2 M. 100% Patient Care Demonstrations ll,hicJi lm,)roN-e Quali A6cessibili and rqaiaizat es 86 coronary and otJier intensive care activities 7.5 @l. Expanded and improved ambulatory care in neighborhood health centers, clinics, an outpatient departments . . . . . . . 9.2 @l. Expanded and improved home care and lonq-term care 2.8 @l. Other activities such as emergency services, mobile units, specialized care services, and non-intensive in-hospital care . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 @l. @lanj)(y,@er Trai.ni-iig ancl Utilization It is estimated that approximately 148,660 pl)),sicians, iiurses,,.aad other health personnel ivill liai,c been trained ii-i fiscal year 72 at@a cost of about $32 million. Purl)osos of RNn). ti7aiiiin(, @id contiiiiiiii(, ecILicatioii are gener e -(2) ally to either (1) up-g@ade pr&sent skills and luioi@ledu train in net%, skills or (3), train iieiN, persom Estimated nuiTbers that ijill have been trained: Physicians I\Iurses Allied Health @lulti.])Yofessional Tot-,n' NeA,i People 2)300 2)301@ I\ieiv skills 3)500 lo)goo 18'900 16$800 50,10%- Ppgtading. existing 22,900 16)700 41$600 52)000 96,20C- TOTAL 261400 27,600 25@800 68)800 148)60"-)' EXI 11 13 1'1' I I I ci-iARAcrERISTICS OF REGIC@-U, PIZOCIR@\is DEi\Y)C,IZAX@]IC F@.ACTS There are S6 PNTs Ionic], cover the entire United States and its trust territories. The Prog-ra,,,-,s include the entire population of the IJPitecl States. (204 million) and -t,-ar)r considerably in their size and characteristics. IARGEST REGIO-N In population: California (@.0 million) In size: l@ashington/Alaska (633,000 square miles) SNIALLEST REGION In population: I\Iorthei-ii Nei@ Encla-nd (44S,000) In size: Mietropolitan IVashiiigton, D.C. (1,-@00 square miles) WIIE PX-,GION-S ARE- @'I&II\TLY URB-k,\' (,NTD- '..I YORY, @@'ROPOL ITk,\T) SO@g, RURKL IK,@NS--kS GEOGIZKPILIC BOU,\DARIES: Mffber of @,egions iihich . @tonl-,ass single states . . . . . . . . . . . 33 -]I-on,.nass tire or irore states . . . . . . . 4 Are parts of single states . . . . . . . . . 11 A-re parts of tv.-o or more states . . . . . . . 8 -MPULATICIN: I\kmber of Regions i.,,Iiich have . Less than I million persons . . . . . . . . . 5 0 1 million to 2 million . . . . . . . . . . .. .11 . 2 million to 3 million . . . . . . . . . . . .14 3 million to 4-rillion . . . . . . . . . . . .8 . . 4 million to 5 million . . . . . . 0 7 . Over 5 million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 11 RJ,;GIO,@AJ, AI)VISORY GP,,OUIIS SIZE: . 1967 1849@Persoii.s (Total) 8 (Averaoc Group) 3 1969 2324 Persons (Total) 4 42 (ANreraae Group) . 1970 2481 Persons (Total) 45 (Averaae Group) . 1971 Persons (Total) -48 (Pvera.ge Group) CO',%nSITION OF PT-GIO\'AL ADVISORY GP,,CIJPS r- Y171 (10/71) FY 170 (4/7AI) 1) e, r Percent f )\Imber I e@cejit Total 696 100 2481 100 Practicina Physicians 726 27 656 26 .327 Hospital Acbninistrators 376 .14 13 @ledical Center Officials 217 8 259 10 Voluntat)r Auencies 200 7 212 9 Public Health Officials ISO 6 134 6 Other Health ll,orkers 298 11 216 9 Menibers of Public 5S6 21 468 19 Other 173 6 209 8 TASK FORCF-,S kND COi@1\117FFES 1\@.,IBER ANl) SIZE: 1969: 492 Coiitnittees in S4 Regions: S 320 Total membership . . 1971: 410 Coimittees in 55 Reaions: 6,379 Total membership CO'I\ff'OSITIO,N: Number Percent Profession 1969) 1971 (196@ 1971 Physicians 3273 3S23 61 55 Nurses 486 580 9 9 Allied Health 672 802 13 13 Other* 889 - 14S6 17 23. Total 6379 100 io-o Includes n@eirbers of the public, hospital administrators, and others) TYPE OF TASK FORCE/CO@@,II'MEE: no. of Committees Percent Category 11969) (1 7@l 1969) (1971 Heart 65 41 13 Cancer 60 42 12 .10 Stroke 54 36 11 9 Other Disease including Kidney) 39 30 8 7 Planniiia Evaluation 30 27 6 8 Continuilia Education & T-raiiiina 45 47 9 12 Health @lanpoiver 11 27 2 4 other 188 160 39 39 Total iou 100 -GI -TTEIZS -rane-s Coordiiiatiiiu 1-1ciOquarters G L ..Ijiilvcrsities 31 34 Public (25) (27) Private 6) 7) Otlier 25 22 @-ledical Societies 4) 4) @leivly Organized A,-,encies/ Corporations (18) (15) .3) Existing Corporations 3) REGIO,'@L ',NEDICAL PROGR,'tNIS'CORE STAFF Core staff in the 56 Reaioiial iledical Proa-rams a-re i.nvol@Tcd in project C> Z> development, reviei@., and nanioen,,cnt, professional consultatic,-i and cc-,-,i- 0 munity liaison; ro-ra-,-n direction and administration; planning studies p @ and inventories; feasibility studies; and central recional Services. DISTRIBUTIO.-N OF CORE 5FAFF EFFORT BY FINCrIOil 0 Project Development . . . . . . . . . . . ... 20% . Professional Consultation . . . . . . . . ... 29% . Program Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . .22% .i Planning Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . : ..14-6 Feasibility Studies . . . . . . . . . . .... . 7.ti' Central Rcaional Sei-irices . . . 6% Other . . . . M%ff'OSITIO@N Core M TOTAL 1,S84 Physicians 184 Rbgistored Nurses 63 Allied liealtli 37 Other Professional/Teclinical 677 Secretaries 623 . .. . t OPFRATTO',\'AL PROGRVIS The LEVEL OF @i TDINIG as of 12-31-71 reflects tlie'folloiiing program emphases- 22erational Activity r-.mpll,,isis Organization and Delivery for Patient Services . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37% Training Existing Health Personnel in New Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31% T-rainina l@eiv I-lealth Personnel . . . .. . . 3% General Coiitinui-ig Education . . . . . . . 20% Other activities, such as communications networks, improved patient record system , and coordination of services . . . . . . ... . . . 9% Categorical Empliasis An analysis of all tJie Operational grants mqarded to date along cate- gotical lines indicates the following breal,,doivii: Single Disease Heart . . ... . . . . . . 22-6 Cancer . ... . . . . . . 12% Stroke . . . . .. Kidney . . . . . . . Related Dis@-ases . . . . 7% Multicategorical . . . . . 43% HOSPITAL P,@TICIPKTION IN RE-GIO,\@AL @IE-DTCAL PROGM',%IS Total # of 1\@e-r 1\@er Slior-L.-t--rn, participating participating non-Federal in planning and in operational hospitals operational activities activities only FY 1968 5'850 851 301 FY 1969 5:820 1,638 1,246 FY 1970 St8S3 2,084 l@471 FY 1971 (est.) 51880 21@93 2sO79 Distribution of Grants Awarded by Primary Activity Emphasis and Categorical Disease (Net to Date and Available Current Period) Funds Available Current Program Period Net Operational Grants Awarded to Date (12/31/71) (Level as of 12/31/71) Total Net $321.5 Total Available 81.9 Program Direction - Project Program Direction - Project Development'. Planning 125.8 Development, Planning 39.0 0 erational Projects 195.7 Operational Projects 42.9 p Activity Emphasis Projects 195.7 Activity Emphasis - Total 42.9 4anpower training'and utilization 105.9 Manpower training and utilization 23.4 Demonstration of Care 65.2 Demonstration of care 15.5 I)thbr,a@ctivities 24.6 Other activities 4.0 Disease 195.7 Disease 42.9 Heart 53.1 Heart 9.5 I 5.3 @ancer 21.2 Cancer Stroke 20.9 -Stroke 4.7 ,R:elCLted (Diabetes, 20.3 Related (Diabetes, 4.9 Kidney, Pulmonary) Kidney, Pulmonary) 4ulticategorical 80.2 Multicategorical 18.5 March 7, 1972 OPPE February 28, 1972 Status of OPERATIONAL GRANTS 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded 28 Alabama ............ ... 903,105 1,148,226 1,067,901 ... 04 Albany ............. 914,627 1,140,015 139,617 1,534,208 1,846,824 982,902 52 Arkansas ........... ... ... 579,924 983,127 1,249,896 1,465,202 56 Bi-State ........... ... ... 1,012,307 44,453 1,285,855 .19 California ......... ... 2,232,864 9,,602,090 2,376,152 7,058,036 9,244,495 50 Central N.Y ........ ... 460,314 1,237,940 45,039 651,128 40 Colokado-Wyoming ... ... 1,146,824 1,336,738 2,907,348 1,068,854 08 Connecticut ........ ... ... 1,548,257 1,197,354 1,281,811 1,797,208 31 D.C. Metropolitan.. 418,318 1,427,008 1,189,486 1,676,022 ... 24 Florida ............ ... 779,085 11757,031 1,265,412 ... 46 Georgia ........... ... lp4l6,777 2,635,789 68,660 1,537,845 2,055,040 26 Greater Delaware ... ... ... 2,862,484 2,500,033 1,534,753 ... 58 Greater New York ... 967,010 1,127,282 371,532 3,093,923 2,286,741 2,363,582 01 Hawaii ............. ... ... 903,301 914,701 914,184 937,448 43 Indiana ............ ... 1,572,396 1,632,990 945,098 1,217,006 15 Intermountain ...... 1,79Op6O3 1,789,792 3,113,706 3,553,599 3,109,870 ... 27 Iowa ............... ... 412,841 73,979 1,208,683 629,860 888,998 02 Kansas ............. 1,076,600 lp576,304 1,727,063 58,516 1,151,663 1,603,419 54 Maine .............. ... 318,239 862,529 453,406 819,839 959,331 44 Maryland ........... ... ... 2,236,520 2,124,469 1,644,556 ... 51 Memphis ............ 173,119 749,448 890,107 1,301,111 1,501,786 53 Michigan ........... ... 852,241 989,229 2p725,658 1,029,651 2,119,381 57 Mississippi. ... 731,406 1,754,474 1,208,896 ... 09 Missouri.... 2,88'7,'9'03 4,490,607 5,227,008 4@996,201 2,676,311 ... 32 Mountain States .... ... 206,913 1,997,283 , 959,224 47 Nebraska - South D. 350,339 214,987 501,206 1,162,224 42 New Jersey ......... ... ... 1,030,563 1,412,366 1,342,186 ... 34 New Mexico ......... 475,798 1,959,119 ... 1,093,221 1,033,148 February 28, 1972 0 Status of OPERATIONAL GRANTS 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded Awarded 03 Northern New England .:. ... 955,086 313,788 566,542 824,846 21 N.orthlands. : ........ ' ' ... 1,308,058 1,470,765 1,251,176 06 North Carolina ...... ... 1,799,654 2,168,829 2,275,014 2,326,821 ... 63 Northwestern Ohio ... ... 1,545,276 442,715 369,114 @22 Ohio State .......... ... ... 964,367 204,175 1,244,532 340,835 48 Ohio Valley ......... ... ... 855,317 1,269,711 934,092 ... 23 Oklahoma ............ ... ... 1,121,457 1,408,097 927,010 ... 12 Oregon..4 ........... ... 59-8,879 831,888 888,385 944,66o ... 65 Puerto Rico ......... ... 238,027 253,065 1,058,789. 909,353 ... 25 Rochester ........... ... 724,664 1,018,675 939,674 382,196 891,656 35 South Carolina ...... ... ... 931,507 1,234,457 1,025,253 1,341,412 59 Susquehanna Valley.. ... ... 546,067 719,427 563,777 ... 18 Tennessee Mid. South ... 2,088,598 2,712,154 2,668,969 2,663,096 2,279,526 07 Texas ............... ... 1,943,569 2,764,538 1,497,302 1,088,151 62 Tri-State ........... ... 436,122 1,642,162 2,028,941 2,461,425 38 Wash. - Alaska ...... 1,086,764 1,090,197 2,035,610 2,274,505 1,868,168 13 Western N.Y ......... ... 357,761 1,647,796 1,413,701 17,500 ... 31 Western Pennsylvania ... ... 2,359,490 1,299,85 ... 37 Wisconsin ........... 643,008 lp2O9,914 1,841,718 1,074,609 1,763,505 8,160,201 27,363,664 65,099,569 71,553,652, 69,701,375 46,964,003 55 Arizona ............. 817,812 831,951 61 Illinois ............ 1,662,754 ... 33 Louisiana ........... 771,383 160,000 66 Nassau-Suffblk ...... 795,737 ... 47 Nebraska ............ 475,185 ... 60 North Dakota ........ 296,294 332,287 64 Northeast Ohio ...... 368,116 322,167 47 South Dakota ........ 472,198 1. nIt'14 - - 11 - 4 - 719 7qq 1Q;,,A71 REGIMTP-T l-.EDIf@'ATP"O-Rz'u%iS SERVICE ESTIMATE OF APPROVED BUT NOT FUNDED ACTIVITIES AS OF 12/31/71 Alabama . . . . 783,414 Albany . . . . 'o. 15,910 Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575,069 Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384,248 Bi-State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141,030 California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,189.,4Q6@ .Central New York . . . . . . . . . . . . 149)909 Colorado/Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . o - 72774 Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 726,472 Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321,928 Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,500.,157 Greater Delaware Valley . . . . . . . . . 442,222 Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . 178,857 Illinois . . ... . . . . . . . ., 321,250 Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 21,411 Intermountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 29,063 Iowa . . . & . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99,,112 Kansas . . . . . . . . . . 267,497 Louisiana . . . . . . . . o 95,883 Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610.,092 Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435,623 Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . 165,952 Metro. New York . . . . . ... 204,796 Metro. D.C . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 3512178 Michigan . . . . . 112,903 . Missouri . . . . . 35,610 ' 100,764 Mountain States . . . . . . . . . . Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202,553 North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 17,382 Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290,070 South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66,500 New Jqrsey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,663,745 New Mexico . . .. . . . . . . . . . - 146,719 North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 503,895 Northeastern Ohio . . . . . . -O- Northern New England . . . . 25,191 Northlands . . . . . . . . . . . 1962232 Northwestern Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,862 Ohio State . -0- Ohio Valley . . 599,901 Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,937 Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152,945 Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 200,876 Page 2 Rochester . . . . . . $ 90,371 South Carolina . . . . 329,291 South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66,500 Susquehanna Valley . . . . . 0 . . . .. . . 114,449 Tennessee Mid-South . . . . . . . . .. . . . 23,861 Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273,300 Tri-State . . . . . . . . . . . . . .t. . . 617,515 Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92,209 Washington/Alaska . . ... . . . . . . o - - 22,029 Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,569 Western New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215,824 Western Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . 429,143 West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413,243 Total Direct Costs . $ 16,567 348 Estimated Indirect Costs - 3,561:980 @ 21.5% Direct Costs TOTAL $ 20,129,328 EMPS -(ZIB February 29, 1972 March 1, 197 1972 AWARDS LESS THAN 1971 REGION 1971 1972 Explanation Albany $834,207 $982,902 Although the 1972 award is greater than 1971, the operating level is lower in 1972. 1971 - $1,135.942; 1972 e@ating level - $1,009,532. p" /9_7/ New Mexico 1,093,221 1,033,148 Due to the fact that the Council approvel level was lower than the 1971 level after the cutback. -However, a higher level has been approved and the budget is being negotiated. Northeast Ohio 368,116 322,167 Minor adjustments in funding level in anticipation of merger of NE and NW Ohio RMPIS. Northwest Ohio 442,715 369,114 Minor adjustments in funding level in anticipation of merger of NE and NW Ohio RMP'S. Rochester 382,196 891,656 1970 was last full year of funding - $939,674. Only awarded $382,196 in 1971 to extend grant period for @6 more months. 12 Texas 1,497,302 1,088,151 RMP given additional funds at end of FY 1971 for one time investment. 0 0 28, 1972 February ONGOING CONTRACTS Professional and Technical Development rican Neurological Development of Guidelines for 148,000 Association Facilities Providing Training in the Field.of Stroke. (Organizational Liasion) Americari Heart Association Development of Guidelines and 23,500 Criteria for Preventive Diagnostic and Therapeutic Services. (Organizational Liasion) University of Washington Training Evaluation Specialists 125,000 for education in health sciences. Long Island Jewish Community demonstration of out- 10,800 Medical Center patient clinic for secondary prevention of chronic obstructive lung disease. University of California Tumor registry training program 48,09.7 Connecticut Utilization Develop the programming and 68,452 and Patient Information computer capabilities for evaluating System (CUPIS) regular health programs. Empire State Medidal, Central New York regional rural 75,475 Scient4ific, and Educa- medical planning study tional Foundation Kidney Disease Control Mayo Foundation Home training Dialysis 226,900 Peter Brent Brigham Hospital Home training Dialysis 298,484 Grassland Hospital Hom-e training Dialysis 384,697 Research Hospital Home training Dialysis 187,626 February 28, 1972 ONGOING CONTRACTS Evaluation Ame tican Heart Association Evaluation of Heart Guidelines 139,640 Institute for Study of Support for evaluation of the 10,000 Health and Society Second National House Staff Conference February 29, 1972 STATUS OF CONTRACT FUNDS FY '72 Contract Funds Available $4,300,000 Obligated to date: University of Washington $125,000 Long Island Jewish Medical Center 10,800 University of California 48,097 American Neurological Association 148,000 American Heart Associat4-on (2) 163,140 Institute for Study of Health and Society 10,000 Grassland Hospital 384,697 Mayo Foundation 226,900 Peter Brent Brigham Hospital 298,484 Research Hospital 187,626 Total Obligated $1,602,744 Contracts in Process: Kidney Disease Control Home dialysis training Mt. Sinai Hospital 150,000 Charity Hospital of New Orleans 180,000 University of Utah 165,000 Other Peter Brent Brigham Hospital 9,500 Hennepin County Hospital 50,000 Olive View Hospital 75,000 St. Francis Hospital 40,000 Cleveland Metropolitan HoSp4 tal 15,555 Professional and Technical Development Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals 225,000 National Academy of Science 23,000 American Neurological Association 16,000 John s Hopkins University 90,000 Total in process $1,039,055 Contracts to be processed $1,658,201 Total planned $4i3OO,OOO RF,GIO@,,\L j@iEDIC--%L Page -Quartile 'aiibor Priority I.,stipiate I\ (1) Consultant Services 10,000 -(2) Evaluation of Ileart Gui(Iclincs 140,000 7 (3) Effects of 'nT Ajiti-sniol@iii-'Ads 80,000. 9 2 on Sliokin,- Behavior (4) '%Iult'-reuional Evaluation 50-iso 000 11 2 (5) @leasures and @lothocls for ---25,.OOO 13 2 Assessincy "Facilitation" (6) Italidatin- RNIPS Revieiq Criteria 15 000 16 3 (7) I-rainiiia in Case Study \Ietl-iod is 000 18 1 3 (8) Effectiveness of Rcaioiial 2)500 20 3 Adirisor-y Groti,,)s as Decision- riakin,c,, Bodies (9) Project Ternii-iiati.on in IZ.@iPs 2,500 22 3 -TOTAL ESTI.',L-'kTED COST OF PROJI--;CFS $420"S25,000 TOTAL Ek@kLU;.%TIO'\ SL7-.ASIDE AVAII@KBLE TO Pl,zorlp@VII 3SS,290 I'l D. c- Z. Of Pi f-. C- --i i nn d v,-, 0 c, C) f Lval-u-iti-or, PL-V -O T'Gbrun y 7 of et,,Ltc::f V)ill @,L'C Y(JU @n Febriinry 28 1>2tN,;E-cn ':GO cc: Offici'al File 'JdeliP -ir. PL-terso-i - Car-.plete ,3e@ I.' . 6r project Project Officers Appl4@caL'Ile contract/sti,.inarics OP&E,:Jdel.aPuc-ntc,/diin@ 2/17172 I* -I)rLliry 9, l(@172 DATI@:, I'c., ,RONI Spc,,cial,Projects Officer Of@-"ice of P).-ogi.-aTn and 1,viil.u--tion ;UBJI:CT; '-Evaluation I'c@-vic%,7 Board .Because of a sclieduliii,, oversic,lit, the Revi.c,.i.7 Board x,7ill- be Held February 28, 29, and jiircli 1, instead of Fc-,])i.-uii:y 22, 23, iiid 24. The scii@cltil-c,@- %.7i@l be iOentic@-1 iiid the sclic-CiLile of FeDruary 22 wil'L be folloi..,ed on I"cbrilary 28, the schedule of February 23 will be followed on February 29, and the schedule of February 24 will be followed on i,larch 1. Reports are still due !.if this office February 17. elice D. I L ,j @uP-, I- N -D "U \II-'N'I'AL )!!@.ALTIT %D\.iINISTRATiC'N D Progr'an Evaluation Teams ATF-, I"C@ruciry '@7 @-1972 Tto Special Projects Officer FROM Office of Pro@rarl Planninc, @nd'Evaluation SUBJECT: Second Evaluation Review Board Yes, there will be a second session of the Evaluation Review Board! In preparation for this, please complete the attached forms for each evalua- tion project currently iiiiden,,ay or being planned* These format sheets should cover fiscal year 71 and fiscal year 72. The following guide should be used in filling out each section: 1. Project title. This should include not only the name of the study but tlie official number of the study. 2. contractor. This space should be used- to indicate the name of the contractor. Yf- this is an in-house study, it should be so indicated-. e b,ein(, used, they should be named. If,consultents ar 3. Objectives of study. This should be more than a repetition of the objectives listed in the evaluation plan. It should reflect the specific thinking that went into the development of the RFP and the letting of the contract. 4i Current status. Any results to date.should,be summarized here, as well as a description of the progres@ of each study. Problems should not be included in this section. 5. Major problems. A listing of all major problems, why they arose, and what has been done to solve them.. 6. Expected co@-,lpletion date. self-explanatory. The schedule for this round o the Evaluation Review Board is as follows: -T@,a@, February'-22- - 9:00: to 10: 30 a.m. - CIIS-CHP (a joint session). bring representatives of both teams. -Please 11:00 12:00 noon 1:00 2:00 p.n@. - NCIISR&D 2:00 3:00 p.m. - IO'IP 2'-,Pro,,ram Eval.uation Tcaius 0: 00 a.m. IIIS W@n.c@y, February 23- - 9:00 -L 10:00 11:00 a.m. FIIPS 11:00 12 noon l@CFPS 1:00 2:00 p.m. 'elCIIS NIISC 2:00 " 3:00 3:00 - 4:00 p.m. -1\1 I 0 S 11 4.00 - 5:00 -IICFS @c-b@a-ry-24- - 1:00 - 1-:3b p.m. -BC@il 1:30 - 2:15 p.m. -CD%" 2:15 - 4:00 p.m. -N I i@.'l I 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. -NCIIS once again we would like the head of OPPE,to be present with no more than one backup man. Written material requested in this memo should be furnished to OPPE by lose of business February 17 (that means NI,@ill too). c Lav7lrence 11 ow 11. D. Encl. et Dr. Weikel CUP r L, I T L F Cn,,'TP.ACTOR OHJECTTVFS OF STI'L)Y No major problems have been On- Jun,. 24,.197- -dures were --cL it, Amethodology and proct countered with thi@,.'ccncr :i.@:Lon iiirvifrd Center To develop, field test, a'-Id developed in the first year of content LIclll(!Ilts -Itte far Culm.'Iunity as@-OSS a new Mc-tliodoloPical d on case study$ tertll!l y:. @, C-13 luatioa (7/70-6/71), base scheduling. There have, however, ii,alrh n-id Medical tool for program ev3 survey rese'arth and .inrket analYsi o.,,.e methodological problemso. (Information Support System) basic procedures been a Care ssist Rxps in the.review methods. The false starts, etc. For example, -,10-70-380 401 Commonwealth to a Can .be classified as (1) semi- f their -own activities and ers interviews, (2) -the problems concerning the Aventie structured lead ideatification of key health Boston,.mass 02215 the dLvclop@-ent.of their unstructured key informant inter-. c proposed prd'irram. it-was views,-(3) activity analysis, (4) leaders, structural.vs. tinstructure base document analysis. d on the@ that questionnaire approach, timing and arold Keairrest premise a mus t be nature.of feedback to the'WrIPS project evaluation effort ation problem matrex 'eful@ and must :Lnfluend These ISS program evalu in four involved, and the Director us a, ucted if appropriate, future pro- Ctivities were cond utilized. Rt!Ps (Maine, Nassau-suffolk, The central question (or pro'olem) gram development. western Pennsylvania, and Western ai whether Iss is an effective ISS ta.tes into account th York) during that period. is pM functions as a faciliti- New were methodological too.1 for pro@.ra!a modifications and refinements 0- evaluation the'r @IPS Zeall,i tor of change, is a. "helpinle n; whe made in the methodology'and pr would find it useful- That is organization--that is'. it is 'f the fir dedu@s as a result 0 .tc,@ure given a broadly.-aimed program in experience, and ISS was problematic at this jtl which there is commitment to year ded tg four other RYPs the experience and evidence. On -for-the- exten achieveia change ysten and (crisis-, Area IV, Illinois, t,he'other hand, insights and bett'ce in a large's dized Tennessee Mid-South, and Wisconsin, methodologies have been Jeveloped ,in which an unstandar 71-6/72). which 'probably will have some ention in-the second Year (7/ 'or and large scale interv -In addition, two of the initial utilit@ and/or iv-Plicati:lrs is m "in an o go ng system. - . the alps and P-MPS - ade R,,iPs (NIS, and WNY) are Most such "helping' orgaiiza- tour cked" for a second being "tra ti6ns are not initiated to ach2:.eve.speeific changesi..rlyyl 'has been av, y often do not h . c The entire proqess The ined objectives and they completed in two of the rIL"s def wide scheduled in the second year, and intervere in such a field work in a third. In &a of matters that it is the ran ion, a two-day meeting was. i- criteria addit difficult to se lec for their evaluation. recently held (2./9-10) involving outsiders to critique the seeks to five Spe@ifically, ISS dedures which were methodology and pro .'describe (1,) the oreaniza employed and the tentative tionbtl climate in %Inch the Si n@ '=owing findings and coriclu, a activities. program o@rates, (2) the -people in from the fir.st year leaders and key yst@ (3,) These findings inclu'ded (1) mqst the- nedical care a wed believe that th@ ing the medil peroris intervie thdlpr6blems fee a broader riindate. than @cai system of the region, ayelp has elves believe.. ns theses (4)'the activities of the the ProAra, am; with the best represen program. And to evaluate Pro@ relationships tation of leaders on the ReaionaA the apparent OBJECTXVFS (can't) C=rNr STATUS - (can't) better,c6rrelation between pro- between objectivcsy activities posed and recommended activities. and problems; (2) the relation- (2) about a third of the persons ship betVcen papt activities i'ited with change" are not and problem solving activities "assoc perceived by leaders ; (3)the identified as Itey health leaders in rciations@ip-betwe,,@pmposed the region. This resource is activities and problem solving probably underutilized by the RMP activities recommended by in comparison with "leaders of leaders; (4) the reported position," (3) activities Of so agency must be visible in order to influence of the program on changes that'have recently encourage financial support; occurred in the medical care operational projects tend to be system of the region; (5)th4i more visible than core staff success and.' activities; consequently, RMPs reported purpose, future of the program; (6) remain more concerned with projects relation of the program to than program, and (4) the correlation between RvX supported and proposed tbe'leaders in the medi cal care system. activities and either a Region's stated goals and objectives or the rceived major problems and needs as pe by.its %ay health leaders, is not highly positive. STBDY CURRENT STATUS %WOR PROBLEMS TITL-R- CO'C@RACTOR OBJECTIVES OF Ju 'Sources Sought (1) Assess the manner in wbicl Proposed notice for publication ne .1-97.3. Cr-'.Ieria Announcement; the established-criteria in Commoibe Business Dairy -tin& to performance, sbb mitted to'Contricting rela SI pi:ocess,.and program are Officer, HS,%M. Program review 34(2) sensitive tools to adequately @ow in process. and objectively assess the effectiveness of Regional @led@al Programs from the standpoint of the national RMP review process. (2) Conduct a series of interviews with members of advisory bodies regarding the adequacy.of review criteria. (3) Develop suggestions for impro@e@nt of the review terii; cri MAJOR ?ROBLEMS CC)-,T?-"-TOR B@JECTIVES OF STLIDY CURRFNT STATUS Terminacion IL-TS/OPE Designed to examine funding By early February, after several Some problems exist-in terms of May 1972 In-House levels by various categories test runs,'two of three tables data and programming.requireirerts, q 4Xo consultants) in all Regions for periods re uired by the study were pro-. especially in terms of data vided to the Office of Planning available for the third table, preceding and following the ' be obtained from re u@dget-'-ng (,:nd rdc-o@si@Lra- -akicf Evalu3tion by the office of which cannot (1).A set of the computer svstem. tion of program priorities) Systems Management occurring in all Regions due three tables (@y disease category, tion' by primary purpose, and by type to t..e $8 million reduc ant funds of sponsoring agency) showing in RYP allocated gr ordered by the OMB in Sp@ing total funds awarded for each 1971. category in December 1970 and June 1971, and the increases and decreases in each category; (2) A single table comparing clis- ease categories and primary for all project rpose categories pu with net changes in -funding over the study period. 3)The third table will be prepared by OPE maftdally later in the study--a matrix of sponsor and grantee agency for all projects. In mid-February, the OPE staff have prepared percentages for all first set of categories in the 'tables and are working to obtain indirect cost data' which is not available in entirety from the p ter systerq. OPE is also c6m u negotiating details of two further@ quests with OS@l: a comparison re of .Core f-@nding for all KiPs for the two stud periods (12/70 y and 6/71), and data-!or a further table on the 143 terminated projects (as of 6/71). @OR P-R-OBLLMIS -@F E. Co';T?,ACTOR OBJ@TIVES OK STUD'F CURRE-,NL STATUS iune 1972 ais.Of RMPS/OPE -Ass6ss the structure of phase I of this study was presen- None Regional Advisory Groups in red for final review.in ia,%uary Advisory In-house entitled "Review ati 1972. The report Zs %frs. Dorothy, Moga, terms.of their oper ng Consultant' characteristics slid tne of Regional Advisory Group 'c.=aking Bylaws" depicts the patterns of influence that these thority availa@le to Regional characteristics have on au festiveness of the Advisory Groups of 56 regions, the-ef and provides recommendations for decisionmaking process udy. We will change and further at be developing a "model" set of bylaws bcscd on present findings. tributed to This-model will be dis the R@Ts for review, acceptance, and- in some instances, itnplemen- tation. We will also prepare an paper on the authorities of issue the RAG,grantee institution, and RMP Coordindtor, based on present findings. CURRENT STATUS MAJOR PROBLEMS T I'-RLE CONTRA%"TOR OBJECTIVES OF STUDY tion IU.-.TS/OPE Designed to examine funding By early February, after several Some problems exis In-House levels by various categories test runs, two of three tables data and programme @o consultants in all Regions for periods required by the study were pro-. especially in term pre@cling and foll k@vi@@h vided to the Office of Planning available for the rebud-et3.ng (and reconsidera- anf care by individual and institutional providers. This objective would place emphasis-on recoiiiiendations whose implementation would lead to more effective utilization of manpower and facilities and reduction in cost while improving the delivery of care to patients with cardiovascular disease. r CURRENT STATUS MAJOR PROBLPRIS C(",,T'%/%CTOR OB.TECTIVES-OF STUDY 'fects of Currently on schedule. Ads have - None. Adtel,-Linited To.determine the ef been on television since October'. -oss'-. 261 L@'.-adison Ave a television campaign directed toward "less hazardous Weekly reports oh what T.V. pro- @s S New Yorki N.Y. -base-line mok-ing," that is, the use grams are cut'in on, 'and 'S John Adl@t' of'low-tar, low nicotine diary information has been sub c @ro.iedt Director i&rettes, reducting mitt6d. inlid'lation, smoking less of each- diszarett!e,, etc. T STATUS CONT@tt%CTOR OBJECTIVES OF STUDY CURREN MA-TOR PROBLEMS (1) Design and test various Slightly behind schedule. Most of None c of a Univ. of Wash- the Regional-Reporting and Evalua- ington -@-:.c-nt tectiniques-necessary to es, functions s t e, Seattle, Wash. develop a management infor tion Systdm process mation system which will ctiteria forThats and their (Washinoton/ enab-@RiviPS and the@/-A-R@-- instructions are operational, Alaska RMP) to optimize decision making but not completely tested. ent preliminary results indi- .,O-71-83 with respect to program Curr Donal R.' Spark- evaluation artd budget -alloca-6 cate that the RRES items and for- Tran, M.D. tion. mats are transferrable and-usable Pro4ect Director by another PMP.- Testing will be and Di-rector, (2)' Develop aProcedures' continued to ensure'the validity Washi-igton/Alaska Manual which will enable of these preliminary.test results RiNiT replication of the model. and contusions. Several sections system in other RiMP's with:-' of procedures manual nearing, out their having to dupli-' completion. Completed current cate the development and revisions to General Time-Oriented testing phases already Flow Chart; submitted revised accomplished within W/ARMP. @opies of the Operation and PlanninE-_ Cycle Time-PhAsed Detail Flow Charts, and the General Flow Chart of Regional Reporting and Evaluation System (RRES). In the near future'will complete definitions and five systems modules agreed uponby RMPS and W/ArMP. 0 0 0 February 29, 1972 Composition of Direct Operations and Program Direction and Management Services 1973 Pres. Budget Direct Operations Division of Operations & Development 83 Division of Professional & Technical Development 92 (EMS=25) Office of Systems Management 19 Total 194 Program Direction & Management Services Office of Director 12 Communications & Public Information 11 Administrative Management 29 Planning & Evaluation 16 Total .68 Grand Total 262 Object Class Increases Positions +25 For new Emergency Medical Services activity. Personnel compensation +$323,000 For new Emergency Medical Services activity and within- grade pay increases. Personnel Benefits +$34,000 For new Emergency Medical Services activity and within-, grade pay increases. Travel and transportation of persons +$25,000 For new Emergency Medical Serv@ces activity. Other services +$82,000 For new Emergency Medical Services activity and working capital fund charges. Supplies and materials +$3,000 For new Emergency Medical Services activity. Grants, subsidies & -$14,200,000 The decrease of $14,200,000 in contributions 1973 reflects adjustments for two nonrecurring items in 1972 of $21,200,000 and an increase of $7,000,000 for a new program of grants and contracts for emergency medical services. 25 positions and $350,000 are included for the new Emergency Medical Services Program. These resources will be used to provide'planning and .:evaluation, professional and technical assistance, standard setting, project review roject grants and contracts management, data systems development, p and program direction and management services. Annual Directive Staff Grade Number Salary MD Supervisory PHA GS-15 1 $24,251 Administrative Asst Evaluation GS-9 5 Seciretary GS-6 1 7,727 Technical/Consultative Emergency Medical Advisors/ Community Organizers - PHA GS-12 7 105,280 Project Officers for Contracts Public Health Analysts GS-13 3 53,283 Secretary GS-5 3 20,814 Secretary GS-4 4 24,808 Data Development Supervisory Systems Analyst GS-14 1 20,815 Systems Analyst GS-13 1 17,761 Systems Analyst GS-12 l' 15,040 Secretary GS-5 1 6,938 ..Secretary GS-4 1 - 6,202 25 313,389