Oetober 24, 1972

ro Dick Berman

ee

PROM : Dan Zwick
SUBJECT : RMP Paper

ISSUE -
It seems there should be 2 othsxr options:

Ll. Ru’P's should increase attention to
categorical diseases

2. RMP should be included in revenue
gharing but with separate earmark for
the designated RMP organization.

You might wish to include another:

3. RMP should be included in revenue
sharing but with separate earmark for
designated RMP functions.

ISSUE Ii
I thought Marcuelis was for the option of

Federal certification of thellocal review process
with moderate Federal program direction.
Page 2 ~ Dick Berman

ISSUE Tit

£ still believe the paper should deal with
“eore staff" issue - perhaps by emphasizing % of
funds to be used for demonstrations and other

local activiries.

TAB B

I- Page 6 = Multi-categorical and compre-
hensive are not the same, <
Need breakdown of activities by
region, i.e. how many regions
Going things in demonstrations,
manpower, etc., by subeactivity.

Page & =~ Column 2 is confusing - it is
% Of $35 million, I guess .~ it
would be good to indicate also
% Of $111 million.

Page 9 « What do we know about “incor=
poration” results?

Page ll- Need information on fund allo~
cation by region, including
. per capita. .

IX ~ Criticism and Resnonge

For the purposes of analysis, the
criticisms need to be more fully presented.

1. What relationship to national goals?
Can more data be presented in
relation to 3 missions?

 
Page 3 ~ Dick Berman

2.

3

3B.

4.

an
s

10.

ll.

What about other regions?
How such is actually spent?

How does manpower bit relate to
BEME reorganization plans?

Some of concern is reported high
staff salaries.

Need data on how many regions are
doing so.

Why so many "No Comments".
Confusion on “comprehensive"™ again.

Criticism that RMP supports largely
what would hapven anyway.= not
meaningful or effective changes,
individual whims.

Criticism that RMP adds to patient
care costs by developing extra
and costly resources.

Iii - Strengths

lL.

3.

Major HEW “contact” with providers
is Medicare, not RMP.Statement re-
quires revision. Is it "provider
revenue sharing" or not?

Whosa "reform"? _

Note January conference. Why only
half?
Page 4 + Dick Berman

, 3% Le a
4. What happens @binnn *decremental"
funding?

5, But are they becoming tools of
medical society?

IV - Federal Needs

Fhese ideas should be at least intro-
duced much earlier in the paper. They
relate closely to discussions of mission —
and related decision options.

A
Appendix

1. A simple table sumnarizing major legislative
changes, by year, would be helpful.

3. Heed information on fund distribution by
region, including per capita.

5. Needs title

8, Wonder what makes New Jersey so good?
Bui Botd Missouri.

Ratings might be related to per capita
figures.

6, Are there regulations?

Need more specific information on regional varia-
tions ~ for exanple, % of funds for demonstrations

and core staff by region. “
BAL ACTIVITIES

YO - YAQUI
roundwater model
model
data
er action

model

model

data
action pjan

roundwater model
model
data
action

ELICIAS
model
model
data
action

GROUNDWATER ACTION PLAN
ACTIVITIES PROGRAM

11995

 

Dainina 9