ters.—po NOT USE THIS ROUTE SLIP TO | paTEe

 

 

 

 

 

SHOW FORMAL CLEARANCES OR APPROVALS 10/8/74
TO: AGENCY BLDG. ROOM
-Yald GArdell Room 11-07
(C APPROVAL OC REVIEW (CO PER CONVERSATION

C) SIGNATURE C) NOTE AND SEE ME =] AS_ REQUESTED

( COMMENT (C) NOTE AND RETURN () NECESSARY ACTION
(] FOR YOUR INFORMATION

C) PREPARE REPLY FOR SIGNATURE OF

REMARKS:

(Fold here for return)

 

 

To Roland L. Peterson
From eo . “yet
PHONE BUILDING

51710 Parklawn

 

 

 

 

 
. MEMOR ANDUM |. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELF,

TO

FROM

SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
HEALTH RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION
BUREAU OF HEALTH RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
HRP Executive Staff DATE: October 7, 1974

R. L. Peterson
HRP Executive Staff Meeting, October 7

Certain area designation issues and problems, briefly set forth in the
Paper (dated 9/30/74) previously distributed, were considered and discussed.
Although no definitive decisions were reached, there appeared to be a
general consensus or some agreement on several points.

1. The onus is on the Secretary or his designee(s) to justify

non~approval of any proposed area designations meeting whatever
objective (e.g., population) or other requirements are established.
Conversely, the onus is on governors to make the case in requesting
"waivers." This has fairly direct implications for the kind
and/or nature of any area designation requirements we might wish
to set beyond those legislatively mandated, and the criteria for
evaluating and acting on waivers.

2. RHAs should have the effective approval authority with respect
to area designations and possibly have that officially delegated
to them, except in certain specified cases: Specifically (1)
waiver requests, (2) any instance where non-approval is proposed
for an area that ostensibly satisfies the objective requirements,
and (3) those area designations of an inter-regional character
(e.g., St. Louis, Philadelphia).

3. Such exceptions should be reviewed and acted upon by an ad hoc
group composed of both regional and central office staff.

It was agreed that the Area Designation Work Group should develop as soon
as possible explicit draft requirements and criteria for consideration.
Mr. Rubel also requested that as soon as a Senate bill has been reported
out Mr. Kelly and the group suggest the elements of what should be our
position vis-a-vis House-Senate Conference as regards the area designation
process.

With respect to legislation, Mr. Rubel stated that H.R. 16204 had been
cleared by the Rules Committee, and thus it was possible the House would
vote on it this week before they recess. He also indicated the Senate
Committe had reported out $. 2994 last week. Because of the number of
amendments, however, we could not be certain as to all the specifics of
it until a clean bill is actually available.

Copies of a revised and expanded draft HRP orgarizational and functional
statement were distributed. Mr. Croft requested specific suggested changes
and comments by next Tuesday. Its distribution to the RHAs, and regional
office comments, will be coordinated by Dr. Lindsay.

Three new HRP implementation work groups have been established. They and
the project managers or chairman are: Agency Selection (Mrs. Judy Silsbee),

-Expanded Section 1122 Program (Mr. Sam Stiles) and Review and Approval

Function (Mr. Ken Baum).

A joint DCHP-DFU-DRMP training committee also has been established,
Dr. Rorrie reported. That group, which Miss Richards is chairing, is
charged with developing within the next several weeks a training-cum-
orientation program for the staffs of the three divisions.

Because next Monday is a holiday, the HRP executive staff will meet on
Tuesday, October 15, at 9:00 a.m. One topic to be considered is the
Regional HRP Orientation Sessions. Dr. Rorrie is drafting a revised
agenda that hopefully can be distributed prior to Tuesday.

cc: Dr. Wherritt
Dr. Ellis