Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2004 / Notices 44031

the provisions of section 603 of the 

RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of 

the Act, we define a small rural hospital 

as a hospital that is located outside of 

a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has 

fewer than 100 beds. We have 

determined that this notice does not 

have a significant impact on the 

operations of a substantial number of 

small rural hospitals. 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also 

requires that agencies assess anticipated 

costs and benefits before issuing any 

rule that may result in an expenditure 

in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $110 million. We have 

determined that this notice will not 

have a consequential effect on the 

governments mentioned or on the 

private sector. 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed rule (and subsequent final 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

requirement costs on State, local, or 

tribal governments, preempts State law, 

or otherwise has Federalism 

implications. We have determined that 

this notice does not have an economic 

impact on State, local, or tribal 

governments. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Executive Order 12866, this notice was 

not reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget.

Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 

1395hh).

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance 

Program)

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—

Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 

93.774, Medicare—Supplementary 

Medical Insurance Program)

Dated: July 13, 2004. 

Mark B. McClellan, 

Administrator, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services.

[FR Doc. 04–16659 Filed 7–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

[CMS–3142–NC] 

Medicare Program; Evaluation Criteria 

and Standards for Quality 

Improvement Program Contracts

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION: Notice with comment period.

SUMMARY: This notice describes the 

evaluation criteria we intend to use to 

evaluate the Quality Improvement 

Organizations (QIOs) under their 

contracts with CMS, for efficiency and 

effectiveness in accordance with the 

Social Security Act. These evaluation 

criteria are based on the tasks and 

related subtasks set forth in the QIO’s 

Scope of Work (SOW). The current 7th 

SOW includes Tasks 1 through 4, with 

subtasks included under all tasks, 

excluding Task 4. QIOs were awarded 

contracts for the 7th SOW, or 7th 

Round, for three years, with staggered 

starting dates beginning August 2002, 

November 2002, and February 2003.

DATES: To be assured of consideration, 

comments must be received at one of 

the addresses provided below, no later 

than 5 p.m. on August 23, 2004.

ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer 

to file code CMS–3142–NC. Because of 

staff and resource limitations, we cannot 

accept comments by facsimile (FAX) 

transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

three ways (no duplicates, please): 

1. Electronically. You may submit 

electronic comments to http://

www.cms.hhs.gov/regulations/

ecomments or to www.regulations.gov

(attachments should be in Microsoft 

Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, 

we prefer Microsoft Word). 

2. By mail. You may mail written 

comments (one original and two copies) 

to the following address ONLY: Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Attention: CMS–3142–NC, 

P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244–

8016. 

Please allow sufficient time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

3. By hand or courier. If you prefer, 

you may deliver (by hand or courier) 

your written comments (one original 

and two copies) before the close of the 

comment period to one of the following 

addresses. If you intend to deliver your 

comments to the Baltimore address, 

please call telephone number (410) 786–

7195 in advance to schedule your 

arrival with one of our staff members. 

Room 445–G, Hubert H. Humphrey 

Building, 200 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244–1850. 

(Because access to the interior of the 

HHH Building is not readily available to 

persons without Federal Government 

identification, commenters are 

encouraged to leave their comments in 

the CMS drop slots located in the main 

lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock 

is available for persons wishing to retain 

a proof of filing by stamping in and 

retaining an extra copy of the comments 

being filed.) Comments mailed to the 

addresses indicated as appropriate for 

hand or courier delivery may be delayed 

and received after the comment period. 

For information on viewing public 

comments, see the beginning of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria Hammel, (410) 786–1775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Submitting Comments: We welcome 

comments from the public on all issues 

set forth in this notice with comment 

period to assist us in fully considering 

issues and developing policies. You can 

assist us by referencing the file code 

CMS–3142–NC and the specific ‘‘issue 

identifier’’ that precedes the section on 

which you choose to comment. 

Inspection of Public Comments: All 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period are available for 

viewing by the public, including any 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that is included in 

a comment. After the close of the 

comment period, CMS posts all 

electronic comments received before the 

close of the comment period on its 

public website. Comments received 

timely will be available for public 

inspection as they are received, 

generally beginning approximately 3 

weeks after publication of a document, 

at the headquarters of the Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21244, Monday through 

Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 

4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to 

view public comments, phone (410) 

786–7195. 

I. Background 

[If you choose to comment on issues 

in this section, please include the 

caption ‘‘BACKGROUND’’ at the 

beginning of your comments.] 

The Peer Review Improvement Act of 

1982 (Title I, Subtitle C of Pub. L. 97–

44032 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2004 / Notices 

248) amended Part B of Title XI of the 

Social Security Act (the Act) to establish 

the Peer Review Organization (PRO) 

programs. The PRO program (now 

called the Quality Improvement 

Organization (QIO) program) was 

established to redirect, simplify and 

enhance the cost-effectiveness and 

efficiency of the medical peer review 

process. Sections 1152, 1153(b) and 

1153(c) of the Act define the types of 

organizations eligible to become QIOs, 

and establish certain limitations and 

priorities regarding QIO contracting.

The Secretary enters into contracts 

with QIOs to perform three broad 

functions: 

• Improve quality of care for 

beneficiaries by ensuring that 

beneficiary care meets professionally 

recognized standards of health care; 

• Protect the integrity of the Medicare 

Trust Fund by ensuring that Medicare 

only pays for services and items that are 

reasonable and medically necessary and 

that are provided in the most 

economical setting; 

• Protect beneficiaries by 

expeditiously addressing individual 

cases such as beneficiary quality of care 

complaints, contested hospital issued 

notices of noncoverage (HINNs), alleged 

Emergency Medical Treatment and 

Labor Act (EMTALA) violations (patient 

dumping), and other statutory 

responsibilities. 

Section 1154 of the Act requires that 

QIOs review those services furnished by 

physicians; other health care 

practitioners; and institutional and noninstitutional providers of health care 

services, including health maintenance 

organizations and competitive medical 

plans. Section 109 of the Medicare 

Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 

Modernization Act of 2003, Public Law 

108–173, amended section 1154(a)(1) of 

the Social Security Act to expand the 

scope of review of QIOs to include 

Medicare Advantage Organizations, and 

prescription drug sponsors. Section 109 

of the MMA also created a new section 

1154(a)(17) of the Act, which requires 

QIOs to offer to providers, practitioners, 

Medicare Advantage Plans and 

prescription drug sponsors quality 

improvement assistance pertaining to 

prescription drug therapy. Because 

these provisions of sections 1154(a)(1) 

and (a)(17) are new, we will not 

evaluate QIOs on these provisions in the 

current SOW. 

Section 1153(h)(2) of the Act requires 

the Secretary to publish in the Federal 

Register the general criteria and 

standards that would be used to 

evaluate the efficient and effective 

performance of contract obligations by 

QIOs and to provide the opportunity for 

public comment. The QIO contracts for 

the 7th SOW were awarded for 3 years 

with starting dates staggered into three 

approximately equal groups (rounds) 

starting August 2002, November 2002 

and February 2003 respectively. 

II. Measuring QIO Performance 

[If you choose to comment on issues 

in this section, please include the 

caption ‘‘MEASURING QIO 

PERFORMANCE’’ at the beginning of 

your comments.] 

Under the 7th Round contracts, QIOs 

are responsible for completing tasks in 

the following 4 areas, with additional 

subtasks contained in the first three 

areas: 

Task 1—Improving Beneficiary Safety 

and Health Through Clinical Quality 

Improvement 

a. Nursing Home 

b. Home Health 

c. Hospital 

d. Physician Office 

e. Underserved and Rural 

Beneficiaries 

f. Medicare+Choice Organizations 

(M+COs), now called Medicare 

Advantage Organizations (MAs) 

Task 2—Improving Beneficiary Safety 

and Health Through Information and 

Communications 

a. Promoting the Use of Performance 

Data 

b. Transitioning to Hospital-Generated 

Data 

c. Other Mandated Communications 

Activities 

Task 3—Improving Beneficiary Safety 

and Health Through Medicare 

Beneficiary Protection Activities 

a. Beneficiary Complaint Response 

Program 

b. Hospital Payment Monitoring 

Review Program 

c. All Other Beneficiary Protection 

Activities 

Task 4—Improving Beneficiary Safety 

and Health Through Developmental 

Activities 

(Special Studies defined as work that 

CMS directs a QIO to perform or work 

that a QIO elects to perform with CMS 

approval which is not currently defined 

in the Tasks, but falls within the scope 

of the contract and section 1154 of the 

Act). 

Under this contract, to merit having 

its contract renewed non-competitively, 

the QIO must meet the performance 

criteria (including a score of 1.0 or 

greater for Tasks 1a through 1e and 2b) 

on 10 of 12 subtasks (9 of 11 for states 

with no MA plans) of Tasks 1 through 

3 of the 7th SOW, provided that for both 

of the subtasks which do not meet the 

criteria, the QIO has: (1) Achieved a 

score of 0.6 or better on all quantitative 

subtasks, and (2) for the remaining 

subtasks only, in the judgment of the 

Project Officer, the QIO expended a 

reasonable effort to address these 

subtasks, developed and implemented 

an appropriate initial work plan, which 

was assessed during the contract period 

to determine if it was achieving results 

likely to lead to success in meeting 

contractual performance expectations, 

and had made appropriate adjustments 

to its work plan based on these results.

To be considered successful (meeting 

the criteria outlined in the J–7 found at 

www.cms.hhs.gov/qio/2.asp), though 

not meriting a non-competitive renewal, 

the QIO shall meet the performance 

criteria (including a score of 1.0 or 

greater for Tasks 1a through 1e and 2b) 

on 9 of 12 subtasks (8 of 11 for states 

with no MA plans) of Tasks 1 through 

3 of the 7th Round Contract, provided 

that for the subtasks that do not meet 

the criteria, the QIO must: (1) Achieve 

a score of 0.6 or better on all 

quantitative subtasks, (2) for the 

remaining subtasks only, in the 

judgment of the Project Officer, the QIO 

has expended a reasonable effort to 

address these subtasks, developed and 

implemented an appropriate initial 

work plan which was assessed during 

the contract period to determine if it 

was achieving results likely to lead to 

success in meeting contractual 

performance expectations, and had 

made appropriate adjustments to its 

work plan based on these results, and 

(3) failed to meet the criteria in no more 

than two subtasks of any one task. For 

Task 4, except as provided in Task 3b, 

all special studies approved under this 

task will be evaluated individually, 

based on study-specific evaluation 

criteria. The QIO’s success or failure on 

a special study will not be factored into 

the evaluation of the QIO’s work under 

Tasks 1–3. 

However, meeting the minimum 

performance standards does not 

guarantee a noncompetitive renewal of 

its contract. For example, an 

organization within a particular State 

meeting the definition of a QIO may 

express interest in competing for a 

contract currently held by a QIO from 

outside that state, pursuant to section 

1153(i). In this case, we will compete 

the contract despite acceptable 

performance by the current QIO. We 

will make a final decision on renewal/

non-renewal by the end of the 30th 

month of the 7th Round contract. We 

will issue a ‘‘Notice of Intent to Nonrenew the QIO Contract’’ letter to all 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2004 / Notices 44033

QIOs that do not meet the minimum 

performance standards no later than the 

end of the 33rd month of the contract. 

The QIO will be considered to have met 

minimum performance standards if the 

QIO had demonstrated acceptable 

performance in each Task area as 

specified in Section III of this Notice, 

Standards for Minimum Performance. 

If the QIO has not met the criteria to 

merit a noncompetitive renewal, it shall 

be notified of CMS’ intention not to 

renew its contract and will be informed 

of its right to request an opportunity to 

provide information pertinent to its 

performance under the contract to a 

CMS-wide panel. The panel will be 

made up of representatives from each of 

the 4 QIO Regional Offices and the 

Central Office. The QIO’s Project Officer 

will not be eligible to represent the 

Regional Office on the panel when it 

reviews the work of his/her QIO. 

However, the Project Officer will be 

available to answer any questions the 

panel may have. The QIO will also be 

given the opportunity to provide 

additional information. The panel will 

have the right to create its own 

procedures, but must apply them 

consistently to all QIOs it reviews. At a 

minimum, the panel will use the criteria 

listed below for all Tasks: 

• The degree of collaboration the QIO 

exhibited with the Quality Improvement 

Organization Support Centers (QIOSCs) 

and other QIOs, both by sharing the 

lessons and tools it developed and by 

adopting practices and tools developed 

by other QIOs; 

• Whether the QIO was a new 

contractor in the 7th SOW; 

• Whether specific identifiable 

circumstances uniquely interfered with 

the QIO’s efforts; 

• Evidence suggesting that the QIO 

has done exceptional work in one or 

more of the other Task areas; and 

• Any other issues which the panel 

may deem relevant. Upon completion of 

its review, the panel will make a 

recommendation for a final disposition 

to the Director of CMS’ Office of Clinical 

Standards and Quality (OCSQ). 

III. Standards for Minimum 

Performance

[If you choose to comment on issues 

in this section, please include the 

caption ‘‘STANDARDS FOR MINIMUM 

PERFORMANCE’’ at the beginning of 

your comments.] 

General Criteria 

CMS will evaluate the QIO’s 

performance on each sub-task by some 

combination of the following elements: 

• Statewide improvement on the 

quality measure(s); 

• Improvement on the quality of care 

measure(s) among a group of identified 

participants as defined within each 

subtask; 

• Satisfaction among providers and 

practitioners regarding their interaction 

with the QIO. 

Satisfaction will be assessed using a 

survey, the purpose of which will be to:

• Measure satisfaction as one 

component of the QIO’s evaluation. 

• Identify opportunities where the 

QIO can improve satisfaction. 

Task 1 (including subtasks a through 

e) and subtask 2b will be evaluated 

quantitatively. Their success will be 

measured by assessing the QIO’s relative 

improvement on each evaluation 

criterion. The term ‘‘improvement’’ as 

used in the 7th Round Contract shall be 

defined mathematically to mean the 

relative reduction in the failure rate. 

The expected minimum improvement 

level will serve as the reference point 

for each calculated relative 

improvement. 

In a number of the Task 1 subtasks, 

statewide improvement will be averaged 

with the improvement among a set of 

identified participant providers. In these 

cases CMS has set a target percentage of 

identified participant providers, and the 

relative weights of the statewide 

improvement and of identified 

participants’ improvement will combine 

to equal 80 percent and will be a 

function of the percentage of the target 

(up to 150 percent) that the QIO 

identifies as participants. Tasks 1f, 2a, 

2c and all of Task 3 will be evaluated 

by the Project Officer using qualitative 

measures based on information 

provided in reports developed from data 

provided by the QIOs on the QIO’s 

status to date. 

Task Specific Standards 

Task 1—Improving Beneficiary Safety 

and Health Through Clinical Quality 

Improvement 

Task 1a—Nursing Home Quality 

Improvement—The QIO will be held 

accountable for improvement in the 

quality of care measure rates for all 

nursing homes in the state and for 

identified participant nursing homes. 

QIOs will be evaluated based on the 

following components: statewide 

improvement on the set of 3 to 5 

publicly reported quality of care 

measures which the QIO has selected in 

consultation with stakeholders, 

improvement for the selected CMS 

nursing home publicly reported quality 

of care measures for identified 

participants, and nursing home 

satisfaction based on a survey of 

identified participating nursing homes. 

To view the weighting criteria for each 

component, go to www.cms.hhs.gov/qio/

2.asp for a copy of the J–7. 

Task 1b—Home Health Quality 

Improvement—the QIO will be held 

accountable for improvement in the 

Outcome Based Quality Improvement 

(OBQI) quality of care measure rates for 

a set of home health agencies that are 

identified participants. The QIOs will be 

evaluated based on the following 

components: The extent to which the 

number of participating home health 

agencies, with significant improvement 

in a targeted outcome, equals or exceeds 

30 percent of the total number of home 

health agencies in the state, and the 

identified participant satisfaction which 

will be measured by a survey of 

identified participant home health 

agencies using a composite measure of 

satisfaction that reflects the type of 

activities that QIOs are expected to have 

undertaken with these providers. 

Task 1c—Hospital Quality 

Improvement—QIOs will be evaluated 

on the following criteria: statewide 

improvement on the quality of care 

measures listed in the 7th Round 

Contract, and hospital satisfaction based 

on feedback from the hospitals in the 

state. To view the specific criteria, go to 

www.cms.hhs.gov/qio/2.asp for a copy 

of the J–7. 

Task 1d—Physician Office Quality 

Improvement—QIOs will be evaluated 

based on the following general criteria: 

statewide improvement of quality of 

care measures, improvement on diabetes 

and cancer screening quality of care 

measures for identified participant 

physicians, and physician satisfaction 

based on feedback from physician 

designees in the state who participated 

with the QIO. To view the specific 

criteria for this task, go to 

www.cms.hhs.gov/qio/2.asp for a copy 

of the J–7. 

Task 1e—Underserved and Rural 

Beneficiaries Quality Improvement—

The QIO’s work on this task will be 

primarily evaluated on the success of 

the QIO’s efforts to reduce disparity 

between the targeted underserved group 

and their geographically relevant nonunderserved reference group from 

baseline to re-measurement. To be 

judged to have performed minimally 

successful on this task, the QIO must 

demonstrate disparity reduction. QIOs 

will also be evaluated on three factors 

that collectively demonstrate knowledge 

generated by the QIO about the 

underserved target group, the 

interventions planned upon the basis of 

that knowledge, the use of literature on 

effective interventions, and by 

demonstrating the effectiveness of their 

interventions through analyses 

44034 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2004 / Notices 

comparing the intervention group and a 

contrast group. To view the specific 

criteria for this task, go to 

www.cms.hhs.gov/qio/2.asp for a copy 

of the J–7. 

Task 1f—Medicare + Choice 

Organizations (M+COs) (now called 

Medicare Advantage Organizations 

(MAs) Quality Improvement—QIOs will 

be expected to have demonstrated 

appropriate activity to include MAs in 

Tasks 1a to 1e as determined by the 

Project Officer. CMS will survey MAs 

that have worked with the QIO using a 

composite measure of satisfaction that 

reflects the types of activities that QIOs 

are expected to have undertaken with 

these organizations. CMS will further 

use the results of the Medicare+Choice 

Quality Review Organizations 

(M+CQRO) or accreditation organization 

evaluation of the Quality Assessment 

and Performance Improvement (QAPI) 

projects to determine if expected 

improvement was demonstrated. 

Task 2—Improving Beneficiary Safety 

and Health Through Information and 

Communications 

Task 2a—Promoting the Use of 

Performance Data—QIO success will be 

assessed on the timely completion and 

submission of a project work plan, 

timely completion and submission of all 

required reports and deliverables, and 

the extent to which the QIO uses 

information provided by CMS as well as 

any other feedback the QIO receives to 

refine its project activities to achieve the 

desired outcome.

Task 2b—Transitioning to HospitalGenerated Data—The evaluation for this 

task will be based on the following. 

CMS will determine the completeness of 

the assessment survey information for 

each hospital. CMS will review hospital 

data submitted to the national 

repository via QualityNet Exchange to 

determine the proportion of hospitals 

within the State that have implemented 

a data abstraction system to abstract 

quality of care measures. CMS will 

review hospital satisfaction with the 

QIO data abstraction support. To view 

specific criteria for this task, go to 

www.cms.hhs.gov/qio/2.asp for a copy 

of the J–7. 

Task 2c—Other Mandated 

Communication Activities—QIO 

success on this task will be assessed on 

the following elements: The 

establishment and use of a Consumer 

Advisory Council to advise and provide 

guidance regarding consumer related 

activities, the QIO’s success at 

broadening consumer representation on 

the QIO Board of Directors, the 

successful operation of a Beneficiary 

helpline, and the publication and 

distribution of an annual report. 

Task 3—Improving Beneficiary Safety 

and Health Through Medicare 

Beneficiary Protection Activities 

Task 3a—Beneficiary Complaint 

Response Program—QIO success will be 

assessed by the timeliness of completed 

reviews, quality improvement activities 

as the result of beneficiary complaints, 

reliability of the review, and beneficiary 

satisfaction with the complaint process. 

Task 3b—Hospital Payment 

Monitoring Review Program—The QIO 

must complete reviews within the 

prescribed timeframes. The QIO must 

also meet one of the following criteria: 

With respect to the absolute payment 

error rate, the follow-up payment error 

rate must be no greater than 1.5 

standard errors above the baseline error 

rate, or the QIO must have made 

acceptable progress in improving 

provider performance in relation to any 

and all projects approved or directed by 

CMS. 

Task 3c—Other Beneficiary Protection 

Activities—The QIO will be assessed on 

the timeliness of reviews for HINN/

NODMAR, EMTALA review, other case 

review activities and post review 

activities. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Executive Order 12866, this notice with 

comment period was not reviewed by 

the Office of Management and Budget.

Authority: Section 1153 of the Social 

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320c–2)

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.774, Medicare—

Supplementary Medical Insurance Program)

Dated: May 4, 2004. 

Mark B. McClellan, 

Administrator, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services.

[FR Doc. 04–16432 Filed 7–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

[CMS–4074–N] 

Medicare Program; Meeting of the 

Advisory Panel on Medicare 

Education—September 9, 2004

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. Appendix 2, section 10(a) (Pub. 

L. 92–463), this notice announces a 

meeting of the Advisory Panel on 

Medicare Education on September 9, 

2004. The Panel advises and makes 

recommendations to the Secretary of the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services and the Administrator of the 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services on opportunities to enhance 

the effectiveness of consumer education 

strategies concerning the Medicare 

program. This meeting is open to the 

public.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for 

September 9, 2004 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

e.d.t. 

Deadline for Presentations and 

Comments: September 2, 2004, 12 noon, 

e.d.t.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Wyndham Washington Hotel, 1400 

M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 

(202) 429–1700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lynne Johnson, Health Insurance 

Specialist, Division of Partnership 

Development, Center for Beneficiary 

Choices, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, 7500 Security 

Boulevard, mail stop S2–23–05, 

Baltimore, MD 21244–1850, (410) 786–

0090. Please refer to the CMS Advisory 

Committees’ Information Line (1–877–

449–5659 toll free)/(410–786–9379 

local) or the Internet (http://

www.cms.hhs.gov/faca/apme/

default.asp) for additional information 

and updates on committee activities, or 

contact Lynne Johnson by e-mail at 

ljohnson3@cms.hhs.gov. Press inquiries 

are handled through the CMS Press 

Office at (202) 690–6145.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

U.S.C. 217a), as amended, grants to the 

Secretary of the Department of Health 

and Human Services (the Secretary) the 

authority to establish an advisory panel 

if the Secretary finds the panel 

necessary and in the public interest. The 

Secretary signed the charter establishing 

the Advisory Panel on Medicare 

Education (the Panel) on January 21, 

1999 (64 FR 7849) and approved the 

renewal of the charter on January 21, 

2003. The Panel advises and makes 

recommendations to the Secretary and 

the Administrator of the Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services on 

opportunities to enhance the 

effectiveness of consumer education 

strategies concerning the Medicare 

program. 

The goals of the Panel are as follows: 

• To develop and implement a 

national Medicare education program 

that describes the options for selecting 

a health plan under Medicare.