12618 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 51 / Friday, March 16, 2007 / Notices 

U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning 

on March 3, 2007, members of this class 

of employees, defined as reported in 

this notice, became members of the 

Special Exposure Cohort. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Elliott, Director, Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Support, 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 

Columbia Parkway, MS C–46, 

Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513–

533–6800 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Information requests can also 

be submitted by e-mail to 

OCAS@CDC.GOV. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

John Howard, 

Director, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 07–1273 Filed 3–15–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–19–M 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Healthcare Research and 

Quality 

Nominations of Topics for Evidencebased Practice Centers 

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research 

and Quality (AHRQ), DHHS. 

ACTION: Nominations of topics for 

evidence reports, technology 

assessments, and comparative and 

effectiveness reviews. 

SUMMARY: AHRQ invites nominations of 

topics for evidence reports, technology 

assessments, and comparative and 

effectiveness reviews conducted by its 

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) 

Program relating to the prevention, 

diagnosis, treatment and management of 

common diseases and clinical 

condition, as well as, topics relating to 

the organization and financing of health 

care. Previous evidence reports and 

comparative effectiveness reviews can 

be found at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ 

epcix.htm and http://effective 

healthcare.ahrq.gov/products/ 

progress.cfm, respectively. 

DATES: Topic nominations for general 

evidence reports should be submitted by 

April 16, 2007, in order to be considered 

for fiscal year 2007 selection. Topic 

nominations for comparative and 

effectiveness review are accepted on an 

on-going basis at: http://effective 

healthcare.ahrq.gov/topicNomination/ 

nominationForm.cfm. In addition to 

timely responses to this request for 

nominations, AHRQ also accepts topic 

nominations on an ongoing basis for 

consideration for future years. Topics 

submitted for consideration as general 

evidence reports will concurrently be 

considered as comparative effectiveness 

reviews as appropriate. AHRQ will not 

reply to individual responses, but will 

consider all nominations during the 

selection process.Those who submit 

topics that are selected will be notified 

by AHRQ. 

ADDRESSES: Topics nominations should 

be submitted to Beth A. Collins Sharp, 

PhD, R.N., director, Evidence-based 

Practice Centers (EPC) Program, Center 

for Outcomes and Evidence, AHRQ, 540 

Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850. 

Electronic submissions to epc@ahrq.gov 

are preferred. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth 

A. Collins Sharp, Ph.D., R.N., Center for 

Outcomes and Evidence, AHRQ, 540 

Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; 

Phone: (301) 427–1503; Fax: (301) 427–

1640; E-mail: 

beth.collinssharp@ahrq.hhs.gov. 

Arrangement for Public Inspection: 

All nominations will be available for 

public inspection by appointment at the 

Center for Outcomes and Evidence, 

telephone (301) 427–1600, weekdays 

between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. (Eastern 

time). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Background 

Under Title IX of the Public Health 

Service Act, AHRQ is charged with 

enhancing the quality, appropriateness, 

and effectiveness of health care services 

and access to such services. AHRQ 

accomplishes these goals through 

scientific research, including evaluative 

medical literature reviews and 

technology assessments, and through 

the promotion of improvements in 

clinical practice and health systems 

practices. 

2. Purpose and Overview 

The purpose of this notice is to solicit 

topic nominations for evidence reports, 

technology assessments, and 

comparative and effectiveness reviews. 

Professional societies, health systems, 

employers, insurers, providers, and 

consumer groups are encouraged to 

nominate topics and then collaborate 

with AHRQ, as it carries out its mission 

to promote the practice of evidencebased health care. In this endeavor, 

AHRQ serves as a science partner with 

private-sector and public organizations 

in their efforts to improve the quality, 

effectiveness, and appropriateness of 

health care delivery in the United 

States, and to expedite the translation of 

evidence-based research findings into 

improved health care services. To 

undertake scientific analyses and 

evidence syntheses on topics of highpriority to its public and private 

healthcare partners and the health care 

community generally, AHRQ awards 

task order contracts to its Evidencebased Practice Centers (EPCs). 

The EPCs produce systematic reviews 

of the scientific literature—evidence 

reports, technology assessments, and 

comparative and effectiveness reviews—

that provide to public and private 

organizations the foundation for 

developing and implementing their own 

practice guidelines, performance 

measures, educational programs, and 

other strategies to improve the quality of 

health care and decision-making related 

to the effectiveness and appropriateness 

of specific health care technologies and 

services. The evidence reports, 

technology assessments, and 

comparative and effectiveness reviews 

also may be used to inform coverage and 

reimbursement policies. As the body of 

scientific studies related to organization 

and financing of health care grows, 

systematic review and analysis of these 

studies, in addition to clinical and 

behavioral research, can provide health 

system organizations with a scientific 

foundation for developing or improving 

system-wide policies and practices. 

Currently, AHRQ supports 

approximately nine general evidence 

reports per year, in collaboration with 

non-Federal partners, and 4–10 

comparative effectiveness reviews. 

Nominations of general topics from nonFederal partners are solicited annually 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

However, topic nominations are 

accepted on an ongoing basis. All 

nominations received in the previous 

year as well as topics that were 

previously submitted but not selected 

are considered for the upcoming year. 

Reports and assessments usually 

require about 12 months for completion 

once assigned to an EPC. AHRQ widely 

disseminates the EPC evidence reports 

and technology assessments, both 

electronically and in print. The EPC 

evidence reports, technology 

assessments and comparative and 

effectiveness reviews do not make 

clinical recommendations or 

recommendations regarding 

reimbursement and coverage policies. 

3. Role/Responsibilities of Partners for 

General Topics 

Nominators of topics selected for 

development of an EPC evidence report 

assume the role of Partners of AHRQ 

and the EPCs. Partners have defined 

roles and responsibilities. AHRQ places 

high value on these cooperative 

relationships, and takes into 

consideration a Partner organization’s 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 51 / Friday, March 16, 2007 / Notices 12619 

past performance of these 

responsibilities when considering 

whether to accept additional topics 

nominated by that organization in 

subsequent years. Specifically, Partners 

are expected to serve as resources to 

EPCs as they develop the evidence 

reports related to the nominated topic; 

serve as external peer reviewers of 

relevant draft evidence reports and 

assessments; and commit to timely 

translation of the EPC reports and 

assessments into their own quality 

improvement tools (e.g., clinical 

practice guidelines, performance 

measures), educational programs, or 

reimbursement policies; and 

dissemination of these derivative 

products to their membership or other 

health care stakeholders, as appropriate. 

AHRQ also is interested in all the uses 

of these derivative products and the 

products’ impact on enhanced health 

care. AHRQ looks to its Partners to 

provide use and impact data on 

products that are based on EPC evidence 

reports and technology assessments. 

4. Topics for Reports 

The EPCs prepare evidence reports, 

technology assessments, and 

comparative and effectiveness reviews 

on topics for which there is significant 

demand for information by health care 

providers, insurers, purchasers, healthrelated societies, and patient advocacy 

organizations. Such topics may include 

the prevention, diagnosis and/or 

treatment of particular clinical and 

behavioral conditions, use of alternative 

or complementary therapies, and 

appropriate use of commonly provided 

services, procedures, or technologies. 

Topics also may include issues related 

to the organization and financing of care 

such as risk adjustment methodologies, 

market performance measures, provider 

payment mechanisms, and insurance 

purchasing tools, as well as 

measurement or evaluation of provider 

integration of new scientific findings 

regarding health care and delivery 

innovations. Previous reports and 

reviews can be found at http:// 

www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcix.htm and 

http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ 

products/progress.cfm. 

AHRQ is very interested in receiving 

topic nominations from professional 

societies and organizations composed of 

members of minority populations, as 

well as topic nominations that have 

significant impact on AHRQ priority 

populations including low-income 

groups, minority groups, women, 

children, the elderly, and individuals 

with special health care needs, such as 

those with disabilities, those who need 

chronic care or end-of-life healthcare, or 

those who live in inner-city and rural 

areas. 

5. Topic Nomination 

Nominations of topics for AHRQ 

evidence reports, technology 

assessments, and comparative 

effectiveness reviews should focus on 

specific aspects of prevention, 

diagnosis, treatment and/or 

management of a particular condition; 

an individual procedure, treatment, or 

technology; or a specific health care 

organizational or financial strategy. The 

processes that AHRQ employs to select 

clinical and behavioral topics as well as 

organization and financing topics 

nominated by the EPCs are described 

below. For each topic, the nominating 

organization must provide the following 

information: 

A. Rationale and supporting evidence 

on the relevance and importance of the 

topic; 

B. Three to five focused questions on 

the topic to be addressed; 

C. Plans for rapid translation of the 

evidence reports and technology 

assessments into clinical guidelines, 

performance measures, educational 

programs, or other strategies for 

strengthening the quality of health care 

services, or plans to inform 

development of reimbursement or 

coverage policies; 

D. Plans for use and/or dissemination 

of these derivative products, e.g., to 

membership and others, if appropriate; 

and, 

E. Process by which the nominating 

organization will measure the use of 

these products and impact of such use. 

6. Topic Selection 

Factors that will be considered in the 

selection of topics for AHRQ evidence 

reports, technology assessments, and 

comparative and effectiveness reviews 

and which should/may be addressed in 

nomination material, include: 

A. Burden of related disease(s) 

including severity, incidence and/or 

prevalence or relevance of the 

organizational/financial topic to the 

general population and/or AHRQ’s or 

the Secretary’s priorities which are 

available at http:// 

www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov; 

B. Total costs associated with a 

condition, procedure, treatment, 

technology, or organization/financial 

topic taking into account the number of 

people needing such care, the unit cost 

of care, and related or indirect costs; 

C. Relevance to the needs of the 

Medicare, Medicaid and other Federal 

health care programs; 

D. Controversy or uncertainty about 

the topic and availability of scientific 

data to support the systematic review 

and analysis of the topic; 

E. Potential for reducing clinically 

significant variations in the prevention, 

diagnosis, treatment, or management of 

a disease or condition; or in changing 

the use of a procedure or technology; 

informing and improving patient and/or 

provider decision making; improving 

health outcomes; and/or reducing costs; 

and, 

F. Nominating organization’s plan to 

disseminate derivative products, 

measure use and impact of these 

products on outcomes, or otherwise 

incorporate the report into its 

managerial or policy decision making. 

7. Submission of Nominations 

Topic nominations for general topics 

should be submitted to Beth A. Collins 

Sharp, Ph.D., R.N., Director, Evidencebased Practice Centers (EPC) Program, 

Center for Outcomes and Evidence, 

AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 

20850. Electronic submissions to 

epc@ahrq.gov are preferred. Topic 

nominations for comparative 

effectiveness reviews should be 

submitted to http:// 

www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. 

Dated: March 8, 2007. 

Carolyn M. Clancy, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. 07–1236 Filed 3–15–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–90–M 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Title: State Title IV–D Agency 

Caseworkers On-Line Survey. 

OMB No.: New Collection. 

Description: The Office of Child 

Support Enforcement (OCSE) plans to 

reach out to as many State child support 

enforcement caseworkers as possible to 

invite them to participate in a brief online survey. The responses will be used 

to determine if OCSE needs to modify 

the content and the means of 

communicating information and 

training materials used to process child 

support enforcement cases. All 

information will be treated 

confidentially and will not be identified 

by State or e-mail address of 

respondents. Depending on the overall 

response rate to the outreach efforts 

through the title IV–D agencies, the 

actual number of respondents could be 

much lower than the nationwide 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES