Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Notices 71599 

22The instant matter also raises concerns about 

the Commission imposing requirements on the 

respondent that go beyond those it agreed to as part 

of the SSO at issue here, which does not appear to 

ban the seeking of injunctions on SEPs included in 

its standards. See SAE International, Technical 

Standards Board Governance Policy § 1.14 (Nov. 

2008), available at http://www.sae.org/ 

standardsdev/tsb/tsbpolicy.pdf. Even more 

troublesome, it is an open question whether the 

patents at issue are even standard-essential. See, 

e.g., Complaint ¶ 16 (‘‘After the adoption of SAE 

J–2788, SPX Corporation sued certain competitors, 

including Bosch, for infringing patents that may be 

essential to the practice of SAE J–2788.’’). 

23See Ethyl, 729 F.2d 128; Official Airline 

Guides, Inc. v. FTC, 630 F.2d 920 (2d Cir. 1980); 

Boise Cascade Corp. v. FTC, 637 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 

1980); Abbott Labs., 853 F. Supp. 526. 

24See William E. Kovacic & Marc Winerman, 

Competition Policy and the Application of Section 

5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 76 

Antitrust L.J. 929, 943 (2010) (‘‘In the 1950s and the 

1970s, Commission efforts to use Section 5 

litigation to reach beyond prevailing interpretations 

of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act elicited 

strong political backlash from the Congress.’’). 

emphasizes the context here (i.e. 

standard setting); however, it is not 

clear why the type of conduct that is 

targeted here (i.e. a breach of an 

allegedly implied contract term with no 

allegation of deception) would not be 

targeted by the Commission in any other 

context where the Commission believes 

consumer harm may result. If the 

Commission continues on the path 

begun in N-Data and extended here, we 

will be policing garden variety breachof-contract and other business disputes 

between private parties. Mere breaches 

of FRAND commitments, including 

potentially the seeking of injunctions if 

proscribed by SSO rules,22 are better 

addressed by the relevant SSOs or by 

the affected parties via contract and/or 

patent claims resolved by the courts or 

through arbitration. 

It is important that government strive 

for transparency and predictability. 

Before invoking Section 5 to address 

business conduct not already covered by 

the antitrust laws (other than perhaps 

invitations to collude), the Commission 

should fully articulate its views about 

what constitutes an unfair method of 

competition, including the general 

parameters of unfair conduct and where 

Section 5 overlaps and does not overlap 

with the antitrust laws, and how the 

Commission will exercise its 

enforcement discretion under Section 5. 

Otherwise, the Commission runs a 

serious risk of failure in the courts 23

and a possible hostile legislative 

reaction,24 both of which have 

accompanied previous FTC attempts to 

use Section 5 more expansively. 

This consent does nothing either to 

legitimize the creative, yet questionable 

application of Section 5 to these types 

of cases or to provide guidance to 

standard-setting participants or the 

business community at large as to what 

does and does not constitute a Section 

5 violation. Rather, it raises more 

questions about what limits the majority 

of the Commission would place on its 

expansive use of Section 5 authority. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29031 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

[Document Identifiers: CMS–10143 and 

CMS–R–284] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, HHS. 

In compliance with the requirement 

of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS), Department of Health 

and Human Services, is publishing the 

following summary of proposed 

collections for public comment. 

Interested persons are invited to send 

comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including any 

of the following subjects: (1) The 

necessity and utility of the proposed 

information collection for the proper 

performance of the Agency’s function; 

(2) the accuracy of the estimated 

burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology to 

minimize the information collection 

burden. 

1. Type of Information Collection 

Request: Reinstatement without change 

of a previously approved collection. 

Title of Information Collection: Monthly 

State File of Medicaid/Medicare Dual 

Eligible Enrollees. Use: The monthly 

data file is provided to CMS by states on 

dually eligible Medicaid and Medicare 

beneficiaries, listing the individuals on 

the Medicaid eligibility file, their 

Medicare status and other information 

needed to establish subsidy level, such 

as income and institutional status. The 

file will be used to count the exact 

number of individuals who should be 

included in the phased-down state 

contribution calculation that month. 

CMS will be able to merge the data with 

other data files and establish Part D 

enrollment for those individuals on the 

file. The file may be used by CMS 

partners to obtain accurate counts of 

duals on a current basis. Form Number: 

CMS–10143 (OCN 0938–0958). 

Frequency: Monthly. Affected Public: 

State, Local, or Tribal Governments. 

Number of Respondents: 51. Total 

Annual Responses: 612. Total Annual 

Hours: 6,120. (For policy questions 

regarding this collection contact Goldy 

Austen at 410–786–6450. For all other 

issues call 410–786–1326.) 

2. Type of Information Collection 

Request: Revision of a currently 

approved collection. Title of 

Information Collection: Medicaid 

Statistical Information System (MSIS). 

Use: CMS requests OMB approval of the 

Medicaid Statistical Information System 

(MSIS, IBC Form R–284) and allow 

additional data collection of MSIS data 

for what CMS now refers to as the 

Transformed Medicaid Statistical 

Information System (T–MSIS) data 

collection. This approval would enable 

states to continue to fulfill their 

Medicaid data reporting requirements in 

parallel from 2013 through 2016 and 

reduce the burden on states by: 

eliminating multiple disparate requests 

for data, allowing states to have one 

consolidated reporting requirement, and 

to better perform its responsibilities of 

Medicaid and CHIP program oversight, 

administration, and program integrity. 

Subsequent to the publication of the 

60-day Federal Register notice (August 

15, 2012; 77 FR 48987), T–MSIS has 

been added to the corresponding PRA 

package to offer CMS and state partners 

robust, up-to-date, and current 

information to be able to: 

• View how each state and the 

district implements their programs. 

• Compare the delivery of programs 

across authorities/states. 

• Assess the impact of service options 

on beneficiary outcomes and 

expenditures. 

• Examine the enrollment, service 

provision, and expenditure experience 

of providers who participate in our 

programs (as well as in Medicare). 

• Examine beneficiary activity such 

as application and enrollment history, 

services received, appropriateness of 

services received based on enrollment 

status and applicable statutory 

authority. 

• Use informatics to improve program 

oversight and inform future policy and 

operational decisions. 

• Answer key Medicaid and CHIP 

program questions. 

Importantly, there is no duplication of 

effort or information associated with 

this request. MSIS provides complete 

Medicaid and CHIP program statistics 

on a national scale and there is no other 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
71600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Notices 

1Please see U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Report to Congress, National 

Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care, 

(March 2011), available at http:// 

www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/ 

nationalqualitystrategy032011.pdf. 

similar information or report available. 

T–MSIS will remove current multiple 

reporting for similar data by the state to 

CMS. 

Although T–MSIS will report more 

frequently, (monthly vs. quarterly) the 

amount of data collected through the 

expanded dataset will enable efficient 

processing to more efficiently satisfy 

data collection needs, thus eliminating 

additional similar duplicate current 

reporting processes. 

Form Number: CMS–R–284 (OCN 

0938–0345). Frequency: Quarterly 

(MSIS) and Monthly (T–MSIS). Affected 

Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Governments. Number of Respondents: 

51. Total Annual Responses: 816. Total 

Annual Hours: 8,160. (For policy 

questions regarding this collection 

contact Kay Spence. at 410–786–1617. 

For all other issues call 410–786–1326.) 

To obtain copies of the supporting 

statement and any related forms for the 

proposed paperwork collections 

referenced above, access CMS Web Site 

address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ 

PaperworkReductionActof1995, or 

Email your request, including your 

address, phone number, OMB number, 

and CMS document identifier, to 

Paperwork@cms.hhs.gov, or call the 

Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786– 

1326. 

To be assured consideration, 

comments and recommendations for the 

proposed information collections must 

be received by the OMB desk officer at 

the address below, no later than 5 p.m. 

on January 2, 2013: OMB, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax 

Number: (202) 395–6974, Email: 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Dated: November 27, 2012. 

Martique Jones, 

Director, Regulations Development Group, 

Division-B, Office of Strategic Operations and 

Regulatory Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29052 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

[CMS–4169–NC] 

Medicare Program; Request for 

Information To Aid in the Design and 

Development of a Survey Regarding 

Patient Experiences With Emergency 

Department Care 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: This document is a request for 

information regarding consumer and 

patient experiences with emergency 

department care. 

DATES: The information solicited in this 

notice must be received at the address 

provided below by February 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: In responding to this 

solicitation, please reply via email to 

CMS ED_Survey@cms.hhs.gov or by 

postal mail at Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services, Attention: Sai Ma, 

Mailstop C1–14–18, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sai 

Ma (410) 786–1479. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In accordance with section 3011 of 

the Affordable Care Act, the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

developed the National Quality Strategy 

to create national aims and priorities to 

guide local, state, and national efforts to 

improve the quality of health care. This 

strategy established three aims 

supported by six priorities that focus on 

better care, healthy people/healthy 

communities, and affordable care.1 The 

six priorities include: (1) Making care 

safer by reducing harm caused by the 

delivery of care; (2) ensuring that each 

person and family are engaged as 

partners in their care; (3) promoting 

effective communication and 

coordination of care; (4) promoting the 

most effective prevention and treatment 

practices for the leading causes of 

mortality, starting with cardiovascular 

disease; (5) working with communities 

to promote wide use of best practices to 

enable healthy living; and (6) making 

quality care more affordable for 

individuals, families, employers, and 

governments by developing and 

spreading new health care delivery 

models Surveys focusing on the patient 

and caregiver experience, including 

those discussed later and the Emergency 

Department care survey under 

development, support the goals of the 

National Quality Strategy for providing 

better care. 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS) has already 

implemented patient experience surveys 

for health and drug plans, inpatient 

hospitals, and home health agencies. 

While CMS and the Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality 

(AHRQ) have developed additional 

Consumer Assessment of Healthcare 

Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) 

surveys for in-center hemodialysis 

facilities, nursing homes, and clinician 

and group practices, none of these 

surveys address consumers’ and 

patients’ experiences with emergency 

department services. A patient’s 

experience in an emergency department 

is an essential component of their 

overall healthcare experience in a 

hospital, and we believe that a patient 

survey evaluating such care will further 

support the HHS’s goals and priorities. 

The target population for the 

emergency department patient 

experience of care survey is consumers/ 

patients and caregivers of patients who 

received emergency department care. 

The emergency department is a unique 

environment within the health care 

system, bridging the world of outpatient 

and inpatient care. This makes existing 

patient experience instruments designed 

for either outpatient care or inpatient 

care only partially relevant for capturing 

patient experiences (for example, none 

of the existing surveys addresses 

patients’ experience regarding 

transitions from emergency room to 

inpatient care). Having a rigorous, welldesigned emergency department survey 

will allow us to understand patients’ 

perspectives on their experiences in 

emergency departments and how such 

experiences change over time. This 

information will ultimately be used to 

help improve the quality of care patients 

receive in emergency departments. 

We are in the process of reviewing 

potential topic areas, as well as publicly 

available instruments and measures, for 

the purpose of developing a consumer 

and patient experience survey that will 

enable objective comparisons of 

emergency department experiences 

across the country. The principal focus 

is to develop a survey for consumers 

and patients 18 years of age and older. 

However, we are also interested in how 

a survey could also be developed for 

pediatric patients. 

II. Solicitation of Information 

We are soliciting the submission of 

suggested topic areas (such as 

‘‘communication with providers,’’ ‘‘pain 

control’’ or ‘‘waiting time’’) as well as 

publicly available instruments for 

capturing patient experiences with 

emergency department care. We are 

interested in instruments and items that 

can measure quality of care from the 

patient’s and caregiver’s perspective, 

including pediatric patients, and track 

changes over time. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES