Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Notices 5533 

1The first workshop in the Examining Health 

Care Competition series was held on March 20–21, 

2014, and examined issues concerning occupational 

regulation, interstate licensure and telehealth, 

health information technology, and price and 

quality transparency. See http://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/events-calendar/2014/03/examining-healthcare-competition. 

persons may express their views in 

writing on the standards enumerated in 

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the 

proposal also involves the acquisition of 

a nonbanking company, the review also 

includes whether the acquisition of the 

nonbanking company complies with the 

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act 

(12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise 

noted, nonbanking activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding each of these applications 

must be received at the Reserve Bank 

indicated or the offices of the Board of 

Governors not later than February 26, 

2015. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. 

Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 

North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201– 

2272: 

1. Guaranty Bancshares, Inc., Mount 

Pleasant, Texas; to acquire 100 percent 

of the voting shares of DCB Financial 

Corp., and thereby indirectly acquire 

voting shares of Preston State Bank, 

both in Dallas, Texas. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, January 28, 2015. 

Michael J. Lewandowski, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01902 Filed 1–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Notice of Proposals To Engage in or 

To Acquire Companies Engaged in 

Permissible Nonbanking Activities 

The companies listed in this notice 

have given notice under section 4 of the 

Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 

1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 

CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to 

acquire or control voting securities or 

assets of a company, including the 

companies listed below, that engages 

either directly or through a subsidiary or 

other company, in a nonbanking activity 

that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y 

(12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 

determined by Order to be closely 

related to banking and permissible for 

bank holding companies. Unless 

otherwise noted, these activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Each notice is available for inspection 

at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. 

The notice also will be available for 

inspection at the offices of the Board of 

Governors. Interested persons may 

express their views in writing on the 

question whether the proposal complies 

with the standards of section 4 of the 

BHC Act. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding the applications must be 

received at the Reserve Bank indicated 

or the offices of the Board of Governors 

not later than February 26, 2015. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond 

(Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice 

President) 701 East Byrd Street, 

Richmond, Virginia 23261–4528: 

1. Live Oak Bancshares, Inc., 

Wilmington, North Carolina; to acquire 

100 percent of the voting shares 

Independence Trust Company, Franklin, 

Tennessee, a limited purpose savings 

association, through the merger of its 

parent company, Independence Holding 

Corporation, Franklin, Tennessee, and 

thereby engage in operating a savings 

association, and providing trust 

company and financial advisory 

services, pursuant to sections 

225.28(b)(4)(ii), (b)(5), and (b)(6)(ii), 

respectively. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, January 28, 2015. 

Michael J. Lewandowski, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01903 Filed 1–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Announcement of Public Workshop, 

‘‘Examining Health Care Competition’’ 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of public workshop and 

opportunity for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

will hold a second public workshop on 

February 24–25, 2015, as part of the 

workshop series, ‘‘Examining Health 

Care Competition,’’ 1 to study recent 

developments related to health care 

provider organization and payment 

models that may affect competition and 

consumer protection in the provision of 

health care services. The workshop will 

be co-hosted by the Department of 

Justice, Antitrust Division (‘‘DOJ’’). 

Specific topics for discussion may 

include: early observations regarding 

accountable care organizations; 

alternatives to traditional fee-for-service 

payment models; trends in provider 

consolidation; trends in provider 

network and benefit design strategies, as 

well as contracting practices and 

regulatory activity that may enhance or 

undermine these strategies; and early 

observations regarding health insurance 

exchanges. This notice invites public 

comments on a series of topics. The FTC 

and DOJ (the ‘‘Agencies’’) will consider 

these comments as they prepare for the 

workshop and may use them in 

subsequent reports or policy papers, if 

any. For additional information, visit 

the workshop Web site at http://www.

ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/

2015/02/examining-health-carecompetition or http://www.justice.gov/

atr/public/workshops/healthcare/2015/

02/index.html. 

DATES: The workshop will be held on 

February 24–25, 2015, in the 

Auditorium of the Constitution Center 

at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20024. To be considered for the 

workshop, comments in response to this 

notice should be submitted by February 

16, 2015. In addition, any interested 

person may submit written comments in 

response to this notice and workshop 

discussions until April 30, 2015. Prior 

to the workshop, the Agencies will 

publish an agenda and additional 

information on their Web sites. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment for this workshop at https://

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/exam

healthcareworkshop online or on paper, 

by following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘Health Care Workshop, 

Project No. P131207,’’ on your 

comment, and file your comment online 

at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/

ftc/examhealthcareworkshop by 

following the instructions on the webbased form. If you prefer to file your 

comment on paper, write ‘‘Health Care 

Workshop, Project No. P131207,’’ on 

your comment, and on the envelope, 

and mail your comment to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC– 

5610 (Annex X), Washington, DC 20580, 

or deliver your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 

5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex X), 

Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Wilkinson, Attorney Advisor, 

Office of Policy Planning, Federal Trade 

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20580, 202–326– 

2084, examininghealthcareworkshop@

ftc.gov. For more detailed information 

about the workshop, including an 

agenda, please visit the workshop Web 

site: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/

events-calendar/2015/02/examininghealth-care-competition or http://www.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

5534 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Notices 

2See FTC–DOJ Statement of Antitrust 

Enforcement Policy Regarding Accountable Care 

Organizations Participating in the Medicare Shared 

Savings Program, 60 FR 67,026 (Oct. 28, 2011), 

available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011- 

10-28/pdf/2011-27944.pdf. 

justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/

healthcare/2015/02/index.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Trade Commission and U.S. 

Department of Justice seek to better 

understand the competitive dynamics 

and effects of evolving health care 

provider and payment models. In recent 

years, changes in the way that health 

care services and products are delivered 

and reimbursed have been occurring in 

response to diverse market trends, 

including pressure to reduce costs and 

improve quality in the health care 

industry. The Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (‘‘ACA’’) may have 

accelerated many of these changes. 

Providers are increasingly seeking ways 

to improve the coordination of health 

care services to patients. Meanwhile, 

payers are seeking ways to incentivize 

providers to practice more efficient, 

outcomes-based medicine and to avoid 

the overutilization of services and 

products. This workshop and comment 

process are expected to identify and 

examine strategies currently used by 

providers and payers seeking to reduce 

costs and improve quality, with a 

particular emphasis on the strategies’ 

potential implications for competition 

and consumer protection. Information 

obtained during this workshop and 

through comments will enrich the 

Agencies’ knowledge in this critical 

sector of the economy and thereby 

support their enforcement, advocacy, 

and consumer education efforts. 

This Notice invites comments on a 

number of topics, including: 

• The kinds of changes occurring 

with respect to health care provider 

organization and payment models; 

• the economic, quality enhancing, 

technological, regulatory, and legislative 

factors that may be influencing such 

changes; and 

• additional empirical research that 

would be helpful in evaluating these 

topics. 

The Agencies are particularly interested 

in receiving comments on the specific 

topics discussed below, and this Notice 

includes questions as examples of the 

types of information that are likely to be 

helpful. Commenters should feel neither 

compelled to answer each question nor 

constrained by the questions listed. 

1. Early Observations of Accountable 

Care Organizations 

Accountable care organizations 

(‘‘ACOs’’) are networks formed by 

physicians, hospitals, and other health 

care providers to coordinate patient 

care. Although the term ACO is used to 

describe a wide range of provider 

collaboration, ACO members typically 

share clinical and financial 

responsibilities for designated patient 

populations, and are held accountable 

for the quality, appropriateness, and 

efficiency of the health care services 

they provide. ACOs can be structured to 

serve commercial patient populations, 

Medicare or Medicaid patient 

populations, or a combination of patient 

populations. 

Some health policy experts and 

economists have raised concerns that 

ACOs might increase the ability of 

providers to obtain and exercise market 

power. For example, providers 

participating in ACOs may be able to 

exercise market power through 

collective negotiations with payers. 

Furthermore, in preparing to form 

ACOs, some providers argue that they 

need to consolidate through merger, 

claiming that increased scale and 

resources will better position them to 

achieve positive results as an ACO. 

However, this may lead to more 

concentrated provider markets. 

In 2011, the FTC and DOJ issued a 

joint statement regarding the antitrust 

enforcement policy that would be 

applied to ACOs participating in the 

Medicare Shared Savings Program.2

Since that time, the Agencies have 

continued to monitor developments 

within the Medicare ACO programs, not 

only to enhance their understanding of 

these programs, but also to assess how 

they may impact the formation and 

operation of ACOs in commercial 

markets. For example, some health 

policy experts have observed that the 

Medicare ACO programs may encourage 

the development of ACOs that operate 

in commercial markets. Also, some have 

warned about the potential for costshifting from Medicare ACOs to 

commercial ACOs, which could result 

in higher prices for commercial patients. 

Comments regarding early 

observations of ACOs might address the 

following types of questions: 

• How are ACOs defined, and what 

are some of the challenges associated 

with clearly defining an ACO? 

• How do ACOs operate? Are ACOs 

an effective mechanism for aligning the 

clinical and financial incentives of 

providers, payers, and patients? 

• What strategies do ACOs use when 

trying to achieve the goals of reducing 

costs, improving quality, and increasing 

patient satisfaction? 

• What are some similarities and 

differences between ACOs and patientcentered medical homes? Are there 

potential benefits to using these 

provider models in combination with 

each other? 

• What preliminary observations can 

be made regarding the success or failure 

of ACOs that operate in Medicare, 

Medicaid, or commercial markets? 

Æ Is there any evidence of 

efficiencies, cost savings, or quality 

improvements? 

• What preliminary observations can 

be made regarding the competitive 

impact of ACOs, particularly in 

commercial markets? 

Æ Is there any evidence of cost 

reductions or quality improvements as a 

result of increased competition among 

providers participating in ACOs? 

Æ What spill-over effects, if any, have 

been observed between Medicare and 

commercial ACOs, both positive and 

negative? 

Æ Is there any evidence to suggest that 

ACO formation has been a mechanism 

for competing or non-competing 

providers to achieve and exercise 

market power? 

• What impact, if any, has ACO 

formation had on patient referral 

patterns? 

• Has the FTC–DOJ joint policy 

statement provided helpful guidance to 

market participants? 

2. Alternatives to Traditional Fee-forService Payment Models 

Traditional fee-for-service payment 

models reimburse health care providers 

for services rendered. Some have argued 

that traditional fee-for-service payment 

models have contributed to the high 

cost of health care in the United States 

because these models may create 

incentives to maximize the volume of 

health care services provided. In recent 

years, various health policy experts, 

providers, and payers have emphasized 

the importance of shifting away from 

traditional fee-for-service payment 

models toward alternative payment 

models that seek to use performance 

indicators and patient outcomes to 

reward higher quality and more efficient 

use of medical services. 

Comments regarding alternatives to 

traditional fee-for-service payment 

models might address the following 

types of questions: 

• What are the alternatives to 

traditional fee-for-service payment 

models, including either reforms to feefor-service (e.g., maintaining a fee-forservice model and adding bonus 

incentives for achieving certain cost 

and/or quality benchmarks) or replacing 

fee-for-service with some type of 

prospective payment approach (e.g., 

global payment, bundled payment, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Notices 5535 

partial capitation)? How are these terms 

defined? 

Æ Who bears the financial risk in each 

model? 

Æ How are prices established in each 

model? Is competition a significant 

factor in establishing prices for these 

models? 

• How does the use of alternative 

payment models affect the incentives of 

payers, providers, and patients? How 

does this differ from the incentives 

created by traditional fee-for-service 

payment models? 

• What are the challenges of 

transitioning from traditional fee-forservice to an alternative payment 

model? 

• What are the economic, quality, 

legal, or regulatory factors influencing 

this shift away from traditional fee-forservice reimbursement? 

• What impact, if any, do alternative 

reimbursement methods have on 

efficient forms of provider organization? 

• Is there a relationship between the 

size and scale of a provider organization 

and its capacity to bear financial risk? 

What size and scale is sufficient for a 

provider organization to participate in 

existing or future risk-bearing programs? 

• What are the competitive 

implications of this shift away from 

traditional fee-for-service 

reimbursement? 

• Is there any evidence that 

alternative payment models increase 

competition among providers? 

• Is there any evidence that 

alternative payment models improve 

coordination and quality of care or 

reduce costs? 

• Is there any evidence of alternative 

payment models leading to restrictions 

on the availability of, or patient use of, 

essential health care services? 

3. Trends in Provider Consolidation 

Over the last two decades, there has 

been significant consolidation among 

health care providers, particularly 

among hospitals. Some economists and 

health policy experts point to this 

consolidation as a contributor to the rise 

in health care costs in the United States. 

The Agencies have a long history of 

analyzing this consolidation and 

bringing enforcement actions against 

specific mergers and acquisitions when 

they believe an antitrust violation has 

occurred. Since the passage of the ACA, 

some providers have argued that further 

consolidation is necessary to achieve 

quality improvements and cost 

reductions through more efficient health 

care delivery systems. The Agencies 

have long observed that in many cases 

providers may achieve these benefits 

through various forms of collaboration 

rather than consolidation. 

Comments regarding trends in 

provider consolidation might address 

the following types of questions: 

a. Hospital-Physician Practice 

Consolidation 

• What economic, quality, legal, or 

regulatory factors may be influencing 

consolidation between hospitals and 

physician practices? 

• What factors should be considered 

when analyzing the competitive effects 

of mergers of complementary service 

providers? 

• What evidence exists regarding the 

competitive effects of these 

arrangements, both positive and 

negative? 

• What does evidence show regarding 

physician service fees and facility 

charges following the acquisition of 

physician practices by hospitals? 

• Is there any evidence that merged 

hospital systems and physician 

practices have more bargaining power 

than they would have independently, 

thereby allowing them to negotiate 

higher reimbursement rates or otherwise 

increase prices? 

• What does evidence demonstrate 

about the quality of health care services 

following the acquisition of physician 

practices by hospitals? 

• Is there any evidence demonstrating 

that common ownership (e.g., hospitals 

employing physicians or acquiring 

physician practices) produces better 

quality or cost outcomes than other 

forms of collaboration (e.g., physicians 

of different specialties forming 

organizations that are not owned by 

hospitals, or virtual networks of 

physicians)? 

b. ‘‘Cross-Market’’ Hospital Mergers 

• Is there theory or evidence that 

mergers between hospitals that operate 

in different geographic or service 

markets may increase the combined 

entity’s ability to negotiate higher 

reimbursement rates with health plans? 

• If such mergers can lead to 

anticompetitive effects, what kinds of 

evidence and economic analysis would 

help to identify such effects? 

• If traditional antitrust analysis of 

relevant product and geographic 

markets does not adequately identify 

anticompetitive harm in these 

situations, what other factors, if any, 

may help identify such harm? 

c. Provider-Payer Consolidation 

• What are the recent trends and 

some examples of providers and payers 

that have consolidated, or otherwise 

partnered, to offer integrated health care 

services and insurance plans to 

consumers? 

• What are the competitive 

implications of such consolidation in 

both payer and provider markets? 

Æ Does this type of consolidation 

increase the incentives for exclusionary 

conduct or otherwise facilitate the 

exercise of market power? If so, under 

what circumstances? 

Æ Does this type of consolidation 

affect incentives to coordinate and 

improve the quality of health care, as 

well as reduce costs? 

Æ Does this type of consolidation 

increase competition in health 

insurance markets, by allowing 

providers to compete with payers? 

4. Provider Network and Benefit Design 

There are many ways for health plans 

to design provider networks and 

benefits packages for consumers, which 

range from individuals purchasing 

health insurance to large national 

employers contracting for health 

insurance coverage for their employees. 

Recent developments include strategies 

that limit the number of providers in a 

network. Certain contracting practices 

or regulatory activity may potentially 

enhance or undermine the use of these 

strategies to spur competition among 

providers and reduce health care costs. 

Comments regarding provider 

network and benefit design might 

address the following types of 

questions: 

• What types of provider network and 

benefit design strategies have been 

implemented recently or are under 

consideration? 

• What are the competitive effects of 

network design strategies that limit the 

number of providers in a network (e.g., 

narrow networks, tiered networks, 

reference pricing, etc.)? 

Æ Can these strategies lead to cost 

reductions or improved coordination 

and quality of care? 

Æ Are there circumstances under 

which they might create or facilitate the 

exercise of market power, or otherwise 

be anticompetitive? 

• What is the relationship between 

market structure and network and 

benefit design? 

Æ Is robust provider competition a 

predicate for successful implementation 

of any of these designs? 

Æ Does concentration in health 

insurance markets impact provider 

network and benefit design strategies? 

Æ To what extent might some network 

and benefit designs enhance 

competition, even when provider or 

payer markets are highly concentrated? 

• What types of provider-payer 

contracting practices may limit the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

5536 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Notices 

implementation of these types of 

network design strategies (e.g., antitiering/anti-steering provisions, gag 

clauses, all-or-nothing contracting, and 

most-favored nation provisions)? 

Æ How prevalent are these contracting 

practices and which parties seek to 

include them? 

Æ What are the procompetitive 

rationales for adopting these provisions, 

and what are their potential 

anticompetitive effects? 

Æ To what extent might these 

practices affect incentives for 

innovation in health plan pricing 

models? 

• What types of regulatory or 

legislative interventions may enhance or 

undermine innovative network and 

benefit design strategies (e.g., essential 

benefits and network adequacy 

requirements, any willing provider 

legislation, price transparency 

legislation, or prohibitions on certain 

provider-payer contracting practices)? 

5. Early Observations of Health 

Insurance Exchanges 

Most Americans receive health 

insurance through their employers. As a 

result of the ACA, individuals without 

employer-sponsored coverage can now 

purchase health insurance on public 

exchanges. Small group employers also 

can utilize public exchanges to make 

coverage available to their employees. In 

addition to public exchanges, private 

exchanges created by private sector 

companies, such as health insurance 

companies or consulting firms, also are 

emerging. 

Comments regarding early 

observations of health insurance 

exchanges might address the following 

types of questions: 

• How many and what types of plans 

are being offered on the exchanges? 

• Who is buying on the exchanges 

and what types of plans are they 

choosing? 

Æ Have actuarial values and other 

information created greater transparency 

and helped consumers make meaningful 

decisions about the health plans that 

they purchase? 

Æ What does evidence demonstrate 

about the use of narrow provider 

networks in the exchange plan 

offerings? 

• How do the state-based exchanges 

differ from the federally facilitated 

exchanges? 

• How have the exchanges and 

related regulatory developments 

impacted competition in health 

insurance markets? 

Æ Have the exchanges had any impact 

on the pricing of health insurance 

plans? 

Æ Has there been entry or exit from 

the individual health insurance 

market as a result of the exchanges? 

Æ Have incumbent health insurers 

offered new types of products or 

lowered their prices in response to 

competition from the exchanges? 

Æ What has been the competitive 

impact of the multistate plans and 

cooperatives? 

Æ Have there been any discernible 

changes to concentration levels in 

health insurance markets since the 

exchanges were introduced? 

Æ Have requirements like minimum 

benefits, medical loss ratios, and 

guaranteed issue affected 

competition among health insurers? 

• How do the exchanges impact 

antitrust enforcement? 

Æ Is there potential for 

anticompetitive practices that may 

undermine competition on the 

exchanges? 

• What are the recent trends in health 

insurance markets (e.g., increased use of 

private exchanges, increasing selfinsurance by employers, employers 

migrating employees to public or private 

exchanges, increased small-employer 

coverage)? 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. To be considered for the 

workshop, comments in response to this 

notice should be submitted by February 

16, 2015. In addition, any interested 

person may submit written comments in 

response to this notice and workshop 

discussions until April 30, 2015. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Health Care 

Workshop, Project No. P131207.’’ 

Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted using the following 

web link: https://ftcpublic.comment

works.com/ftc/examhealthcare

workshop and by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

this notice appears at http://

www.regulations.gov, you may also file 

an electronic comment through that 

Web site. The Agencies will consider all 

comments that regulations.gov forwards 

to them. 

A comment filed in paper form 

should include the ‘‘Health Care 

Workshop, Project No. P131207’’ 

reference both in the text and on the 

envelope, and should be mailed to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 

CC–5610 (Annex X), Washington, DC 

20580, or delivered to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, 400 7th Street 

SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex X), 

Washington, DC 20024. If possible, 

submit your paper comment to the 

Commission by courier or overnight 

service. 

Please note that your comment— 

including your name and state—will be 

placed on the public record of this 

proceeding, including on the publicly 

accessible FTC and DOJ Web sites, at 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/public

comments.shtm and http://www.justice.

gov/atr/public/workshops/healthcare/

2015/02/index.html. As a matter of 

discretion, the Commission tries to 

remove individuals’ home contact 

information from comments before 

placing them on the Commission’s Web 

site. 

Because comments will be made 

public, you are solely responsible for 

making sure that your comment does 

not include any sensitive personal 

information, such as an individual’s 

Social Security Number; date of birth; 

driver’s license number or other state 

identification number, or foreign 

country equivalent; passport number; 

financial account number; or credit or 

debit card number. You are also solely 

responsible for making sure that your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, comments should not include 

‘‘trade secret or any commercial or 

financial information which . . . is 

privileged or confidential,’’ as discussed 

in Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (‘‘FTC Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 

4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include 

competitively sensitive information 

such as costs, sales statistics, 

inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, 

manufacturing processes, or customer 

names. 

Comments containing material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c), 

16 CFR 4.9(c). For any copyrighted 

material, please provide authorization 

(signed by the publisher or author if 

they retain the copyright) so that the 

material may be republished on the 

Agencies’ Web sites. 

The FTC Act and other laws that the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives, 

whether filed in paper or electronic 

form. More information, including 

routine uses permitted by the Privacy 

Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy 

policy, available at http://www.ftc.gov/

ftc/privacy.htm. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 21 / Monday, February 2, 2015 / Notices 5537 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01856 Filed 1–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

Meeting of the Community Preventive 

Services Task Force 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) 

announces the next meeting of the 

Community Preventive Services Task 

Force (Task Force). The Task Force is an 

independent, nonpartisan, nonfederal, 

and unpaid panel. Its members 

represent a broad range of research, 

practice, and policy expertise in 

prevention, wellness, health promotion, 

and public health, and are appointed by 

the CDC Director. The Task Force was 

convened in 1996 by the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) to 

identify community preventive 

programs, services, and policies that 

increase healthy longevity, save lives 

and dollars and improve Americans’ 

quality of life. CDC is mandated to 

provide ongoing administrative, 

research, and technical support for the 

operations of the Task Force. During its 

meetings, the Task Force considers the 

findings of systematic reviews on 

existing research and issues 

recommendations. Task Force 

recommendations provide information 

about evidence-based options that 

decision makers and stakeholders can 

consider when determining what best 

meets the specific needs, preferences, 

available resources, and constraints of 

their jurisdictions and constituents. The 

Task Force’s recommendations, along 

with the systematic reviews of the 

scientific evidence on which they are 

based, are compiled in The Guide to 

Community Preventive Services 

(Community Guide). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, February 25, 2015 from 

8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST and 

Thursday, February 26, 2015 from 8:30 

a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EST. 

ADDRESSES: The Task Force Meeting 

will be held at CDC Edward R. Roybal 

Campus, Tom Harkin Global 

Communications Center (Building 19), 

1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, GA 

30333. You should be aware that the 

meeting location is in a Federal 

government building; therefore, Federal 

security measures are applicable. For 

additional information, please see 

Roybal Campus Security Guidelines 

under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

Information regarding meeting logistics 

will be available on the Community 

Guide Web site 

(www.thecommunityguide.org). 

Meeting Accessibility: This meeting is 

open to the public, limited only by 

space availability in the meeting 

location. All meeting attendees must 

RSVP to ensure the required security 

procedures are completed to gain access 

to the CDC’s Global Communications 

Center. 

U.S. citizens must RSVP by 2/15/

2015. 

Non U.S. citizens must RSVP by 2/9/ 

2015 due to additional security steps 

that must be completed. 

In addition to in-person participation, 

individuals may view presentations via 

live video stream on the Internet. Those 

interested in accessing the live stream 

must also RSVP, and additional 

information will be sent to registrants 

requesting connectivity via the Internet 

in advance of the meeting. Failure to 

RSVP by the dates identified could 

result in an inability to attend the Task 

Force meeting due to the strict security 

regulations on federal facilities. 

For Further Information and to RSVP 

Contact: Terica Scott, The Community 

Guide Branch; Division of 

Epidemiology, Analysis, and Library 

Services; Center for Surveillance, 

Epidemiology and Laboratory Services; 

Office of Public Health Scientific 

Services; Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, MS– 

E–69, Atlanta, GA 30333, phone: (404) 

498–6360, email: CPSTF@cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose: The purpose of the meeting 

is for the Task Force to consider the 

findings of systematic reviews and issue 

findings and recommendations. Task 

Force recommendations provide 

information about evidence-based 

options that decision makers and 

stakeholders can consider when 

determining what best meets the 

specific needs, preferences, available 

resources, and constraints of their 

jurisdictions and constituents. 

Matters To Be Discussed: 

Vaccinations, Obesity, Cardiovascular 

Disease, and Health Equity. Topics are 

subject to change. 

Roybal Campus Security Guidelines: 

The Edward R. Roybal Campus is the 

headquarters of the U.S. Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention and is 

located at 1600 Clifton Road NE., 

Atlanta, Georgia. The meeting is being 

held in a Federal government building; 

therefore, Federal security measures are 

applicable. 

All meeting attendees must RSVP by 

the dates outlined under Meeting 

Accessability. In planning your arrival 

time, please take into account the need 

to park and clear security. All visitors 

must enter the Roybal Campus through 

the entrance on Clifton Road. Your car 

may be searched, and the guard force 

will then direct visitors to the 

designated parking area. Upon arrival at 

the facility, visitors must present 

government issued photo identification 

(e.g., a valid federal identification 

badge, state driver’s license, state nondriver’s identification card, or passport). 

Non-United States citizens must 

complete the required security 

paperwork prior to the meeting date and 

must present a valid passport, visa, 

Permanent Resident Card, or other type 

of work authorization document upon 

arrival at the facility. All persons 

entering the building must pass through 

a metal detector. Visitors will be issued 

a visitor’s ID badge at the entrance to 

Building 19 and may be escorted to the 

meeting room. All items brought to 

HHS/CDC are subject to inspection. 

Dated: January 27, 2015. 

Ron A. Otten, 

Acting Deputy Associate Director for Science, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01875 Filed 1–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

[CMS–9088–N] 

Medicare and Medicaid Programs; 

Quarterly Listing of Program 

Issuances—October Through 

December 2014 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This quarterly notice lists 

CMS manual instructions, substantive 

and interpretive regulations, and other 

Federal Register notices that were 

published from October through 

December 2014, relating to the Medicare 

and Medicaid programs and other 

programs administered by CMS. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: It is 

possible that an interested party may 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES