1922 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Notices 

Health Collaborations, 0925–NEW, 

National Cancer Institute (NCI), 

National Institutes of Health (NIH). 

Need and Use of Information 

Collection: The Center for Global 

Health’s (CGH) Low and Mid-Income 

Countries (LMICs) Global Health 

Collaborations is proposing new 

program specific progress report 

guidelines. The CGH LMIC Global 

Health Collaborations are part of a pilot 

initiative and partnership, between the 

NCI CGH and the Office of Cancer 

Centers (OCC), to promote 

collaborations between the NCI 

designated Cancer Centers and foreign 

institutions from Low and Middle 

Income Countries (LMICs). This 

collaboration is designed to develop and 

implement mutually beneficial global 

cancer research programs by increasing 

the capability of these countries to 

participate and partner in cancer 

research. The proposed guidelines 

request information about award 

performance related to objectives, 

accomplishments, barriers and 

challenges, collaborators, and findings. 

The information is gathered six months 

into the award and 12 months after the 

award (upon expiry). This information 

is needed to monitor the performance of 

this special program within NCI, funded 

through three Request for Proposals 

(RFPs); the first was released April 18, 

2013 and CGH expects to release 

another in 2014 and the final one in 

2015. The respondents are the Principal 

Investigators of the awards. The 

information will be used to monitor 

individual award performance and the 

effectiveness of the program as a whole. 

Since these projects are funded through 

the contract mechanism, the PIs will not 

be required to submit interim and final 

progress reports like other National 

Institutes of Health grantees must. 

OMB approval is requested for 3 

years. There are no costs to respondents 

other than their time. The total 

estimated annualized burden hours are 

83. 

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Type of 

respondents Form name Number of respondents 

Number of 

responses 

per 

respondent 

Average 

time per 

response 

(in hours) 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Principal Investigators ....................... 6 Month Report ................................ 15 1 90/60 23 

12 Month Report .............................. 15 1 4 60 

Dated: January 7, 2015. 

Karla Bailey, 

NCI Project Clearance Liaison, National 

Institutes of Health. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00393 Filed 1–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Announcement of Requirements and 

Registration for: ‘‘Innovations in 

Measuring and Managing Addiction 

Treatment Quality’’ Challenge 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 3719. 

Award Approving Official: Dr. Nora 

Volkow, Director, National Institute on 

Drug Abuse (NIDA) 

SUMMARY: Through the ‘‘Innovations in 

Measuring and Managing Addiction 

Treatment Quality’’ Challenge (the 

‘‘Challenge’’), the National Institute on 

Drug Abuse (NIDA), a component of the 

National Institutes of Health (NIH), 

challenges the general public to make 

concrete advances toward improving the 

quality of addiction treatment. 

Specifically, through this Challenge, 

NIDA hopes to incentivize the 

development of innovative concepts for 

quality measurement and quality 

management systems based on the latest 

science of addiction and its treatment 

and of quality measurement and 

management. These new concepts 

would be game-changing because they 

would go beyond current performance 

measurement concepts in that they 

would not be limited by the data 

commonly available in current provider 

and payer data systems. Instead, they 

would (a) more directly reflect the 

clinical effects that can and should be 

expected from high-quality addiction 

treatment; (b) capture what clinicians 

and provider organizations need to 

measure to help them provide highquality addiction treatment; and (c) 

provide a solid basis for measuring 

clinician and provider performance that 

may be used by patients and other 

purchasers to select and incent highquality treatment. NIDA believes that 

the development of such quality 

measures and management systems has 

the potential to meaningfully improve 

the quality of addiction treatment both 

by giving clinicians and providers the 

information they need to assess and 

improve the quality of the care they 

provide and by providing tools patients 

and purchasers can use to shop for the 

highest quality providers, allowing 

market forces to provide another 

incentive for improvement. 

DATES: 

(1) Submission Period begins January 

14, 2015, 9:00 a.m., ET 

(2) Submission Period ends June 1, 

2015, 5:00 p.m., ET 

(3) Judging Period June 2, 2015 and July 

15, 2015, 2015 

(4) Winners Announced September 30, 

2015 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Q. Duffy, Ph.D., Associate 

Director for Economics Research, 

Division of Epidemiology, Services and 

Prevention Research, National Institute 

on Drug Abuse, Phone: 301–443–6504 

Email duffys@nida.nih.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Subject of the Challenge 

Scientific knowledge about addiction 

and its treatment has increased 

markedly over the past several years. 

We have a better understanding of the 

effects of drugs on the brain. We also 

have new, more effective treatments. At 

the same time, new health care payment 

and delivery models are emerging that 

may provide opportunities to further 

enhance the quality of addiction 

treatment. 

It has long been recognized that 

health care may be improved through 

the development and use of quality 

measures and management systems 

through which they can be collected, 

reported, monitored, and improved 

[Ref.1]. Quality measures are meant to 

reflect aspects of the care provided, or 

outcomes achieved that assess the 

health care quality. Health care quality 

has been defined as ‘‘the degree to 

which health care services for 

individuals and populations increase 

the likelihood of desired outcomes and 

are consistent with current professional 

knowledge’’ [Ref 2.]. In 2006 the 

Institute of Medicine recommended 

developing and implementing a quality 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Notices 1923 

measurement and reporting 

infrastructure as part of an overall 

strategy for enhancing the care provided 

in the field of addiction treatment [Ref. 

3]. It is also the case that the availability 

of strong quality measures, as described 

below, and management systems 

through which they can be reported, 

monitored, and acted upon, is a vital 

component of payment and delivery 

reforms in the public and private sectors 

[Ref. 4]. 

Controlling the growth of health care 

costs without adversely affecting care 

requires strong quality measures. Strong 

quality measures are those that can be 

directly improved by clinicians, 

treatment programs, and/or health care 

systems. Such quality measures either 

directly or indirectly (as proxy 

measures) measure aspects of patient 

functioning, health, or well-being, 

improvements in which are strongly and 

causally related to desired 

improvements in patient functioning, 

health or well-being. Strong quality 

measures may also be used by patients 

and payers to select high-quality 

providers thereby promoting change in 

the marketplace [Ref. 5]. 

Traditionally, three types of measures 

have been used to track aspects of 

treatment quality: Structural measures, 

process measures, and outcome 

measures [Ref. 6]. In the United States, 

quality measurement in addiction 

treatment largely has focused on process 

measures which measure the actual care 

provided, for example whether or not a 

patient received a certain medication, 

and outcome measures which measure 

how patients responded to treatment. 

The most commonly used process 

measures in addiction treatment are the 

Washington Circle treatment initiation 

and engagement measures, both of 

which seek to measure the quality of 

initial care provided within health plans 

or treatment systems [Ref. 7]. Under the 

Washington Circle treatment initiation 

measure, the standard is met when a 

patient receives a treatment visit within 

14 days of diagnosis, while the standard 

under the engagement measure is met 

when a patient has two or more visits 

within 30 days of that initial treatment 

visit. Some state substance abuse 

treatment agencies have used these 

measures to provide feedback to 

providers to aid their quality 

improvement efforts or incentivize 

improvements via performance-based 

contracting [Ref. 8]. Still, the most 

recent National Committee on Quality 

Assurance State of Health Care Quality 

report shows that less than 15 percent 

of insured patients received care that 

met the engagement measure standard 

in commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare 

health plans in 2012, rates similar to 

those achieved in 2004 [Ref. 9]. 

Moreover, there is limited evidence of a 

causal relationship between having met 

either standard and improvements in 

patients’ functioning, health, or wellbeing. 

Another commonly used process 

measure of addiction treatment 

quality—the length of stay in 

treatment—has likewise shown limited 

evidence of effectiveness [Ref. 10]. 

The most prominent outcome 

measure initiative is the Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration’s (SAMHSA) National 

Outcome Measures (NOMs). The NOMs 

are based on administrative data that 

states are required to report to 

SAMHSA. They assess the extent of 

changes in measures such as drug use, 

homelessness, and employment 

between time of treatment admission 

and time of discharge. While measures 

of initial treatment attendance, length of 

stay in treatment, and changes in use 

and other outcomes between admission 

and discharge meet important needs, 

they are insufficient to assess key 

aspects of providers’ contributions to 

the outcomes of care. Importantly, they 

do not signal to providers and systems 

what they need to do clinically to 

improve the quality of addiction 

treatment to the highest possible level. 

Specifically, they do not answer the 

following questions fundamental to 

informing providers how to improve the 

care they provide to patients, many of 

whom have a chronic, relapsing, 

disorder and may require multiple 

treatment episodes: 

• What clinical effects can reasonably 

be expected from high-quality, state-ofthe-art addiction treatment? How can 

these clinical effects be measured? 

Abstinence is thought by many to be the 

ultimate outcome and goal of treatment. 

But, to date, there is no type of 

treatment that has been scientifically 

shown to deliver complete and 

sustained abstinence, after a single 

episode of care, every time, even under 

ideal conditions. Absent that, it is 

critical to determine and measure what 

changes high-quality treatment can and 

should deliver in patients with a 

condition that can be chronic and 

relapsing. What clinical changes 

significantly improve the chances a 

patient will progress toward reduced 

use, sustained abstinence and 

improvements in other important goals 

often crucial to recovery, such as 

improved health, employment 

performance, and healthy relationships, 

over time? 

• How can improvements in this 

measure or set of measures be achieved, 

both clinically and within a provider 

setting or system of care? While 

development and specification of 

measures are important, equally 

important is a carefully thought-out and 

comprehensive conceptual framework 

or model. Such a model would address 

the following types of questions: What 

would it take for the proposed measures 

to be useful in improving quality? What 

does a clinician need to do so the 

patient can improve on this measure? 

What resources, including data 

collection, storage, and analysis, are 

needed to use the measures to assess 

quality and improve care? What are the 

likely current levels of this measure and 

how much might it be improved? What 

unintended consequences might result 

from attempts to improve this measure? 

What might be the effect on the provider 

industry when providers begin to 

improve this measure? 

• How could patients and payers use 

these measures to help them select and 

incent providers? Informed purchasing 

by patients and payers is key to most 

efforts in the United States that seek to 

improve quality and control costs. 

Accurate quality measures are essential 

to these efforts. How can the proposed 

measures be tailored to the 

characteristics of individual patients? 

How can they be fairly compared across 

providers? How can they be presented 

in a way that patients and payers can 

readily obtain and use them to make 

decisions? 

• How might these measures and 

systems be evaluated and improved 

once they are implemented? Research 

can provide important information 

about how measures and systems are 

likely to work. But it is also important 

to understand how measures and 

systems are implemented in nonresearch settings and how they perform 

there. In addition, quality measurement 

and managements systems must often be 

dynamic. Measures may need to be 

dropped or replaced because they either 

have been improved as much as 

possible or did not work as intended. 

Measures may also need to be updated 

to incorporate new knowledge about 

addiction and its treatment, or because 

of changes in how care is delivered and 

paid for. How might these types of 

evaluation and improvements occur 

within the proposed measurement and 

management system? 

NIDA is seeking innovative, forwardlooking concepts synthesizing the latest 

scientific findings from a broad array of 

relevant disciplines to address these 

questions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

1924 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Notices 

Statutory Authority of the Funding 

Source 

This Challenge is consistent with and 

advances the mission of NIDA as 

described in 42 U.S.C. 285o. The general 

purpose of NIDA is to conduct and 

support biomedical and behavioral 

research and health services research, 

research training, and health 

information dissemination with respect 

to the prevention of drug abuse and the 

treatment of drug abusers. Consistent 

with this authority, one of NIDA’s 

strategic goals is to support research to 

improve the quality of addiction 

treatment. Novel measures, conceptual 

models, and related research agendas 

that achieve the goals underlying this 

Challenge will rely on the latest science 

and help set priorities for future 

research and, accordingly, will support 

this strategic goal. 

Rules for Participating in the Challenge 

1. To be eligible to win a prize under 

this Challenge, an individual or entity: 

a. Shall have registered to participate 

in the Challenge under the rules 

promulgated by NIDA and published in 

this Notice; 

b. Shall have complied with all the 

requirements in this Notice; 

c. In the case of a private entity, shall 

be incorporated in and maintain a 

primary place of business in the United 

States, and in the case of an individual, 

whether participating singly or in a 

group, shall be a citizen or permanent 

resident of the United States. However, 

non-U.S. citizens and non-permanent 

residents can participate as a member of 

a team that otherwise satisfies the 

eligibility criteria. Non-U.S. citizens and 

non-permanent residents are not eligible 

to win a monetary prize (in whole or in 

part). Their participation as part of a 

winning team, if applicable, may be 

recognized when the results are 

announced. 

d. In the case of an individual, 

whether participating singly or in a 

group, must be at least 18 years old at 

the time of entry; 

e. May not be a Federal entity. 

f. May not be a Federal employee 

acting within the scope of his/her 

employment, and further, in the case of 

HHS employees, may not work on their 

submission(s) during assigned duty 

hours; 

g. May not be an employee of the 

National Institutes of Health (NIH), a 

judge of the Challenge, or any other 

party involved with the design, 

production, execution, or distribution of 

the Challenge or the immediate family 

of such a party (i.e., spouse, parent, 

step-parent, child, or step-child). 

2. Federal grantees may not use 

Federal funds to develop their 

Challenge submissions unless use of 

such funds is consistent with the 

purpose of their grant award and 

specifically requested to do so due to 

the Challenge design. 

3. Federal contractors may not use 

Federal funds from a contract to develop 

their Challenge submissions or to fund 

efforts in support of their Challenge 

submission. 

4. Submissions must not infringe 

upon any copyright or any other rights 

of any third party. Each participant 

warrants that he or she is the sole author 

and owner of the work and that the 

work is wholly original. 

5. By participating in this Challenge, 

each individual (whether competing 

singly or in a group) and entity agree to 

assume any and all risks and waive 

claims against the Federal Government 

and its related entities (as defined in the 

COMPETES Act), except in the case of 

willful misconduct, for any injury, 

death, damage, or loss of property, 

revenue, or profits, whether direct, 

indirect, or consequential, arising from 

their participation in the Challenge, 

whether the injury, death, damage, or 

loss arises through negligence or 

otherwise. 

6. Based on the subject matter of the 

Challenge, the type of work that it will 

possibly require, as well as an analysis 

of the likelihood of any claims for death, 

bodily injury, or property damage, or 

loss potentially resulting from Challenge 

participation, no individual (whether 

competing singly or in a group) or entity 

participating in the Challenge is 

required to obtain liability insurance or 

demonstrate financial responsibility in 

order to participate in this Challenge. 

7. By participating in this Challenge, 

each individual (whether competing 

singly or in a group) or entity agrees to 

indemnify the Federal Government 

against third party claims for damages 

arising from or related to Challenge 

activities. 

8. An individual or entity shall not be 

deemed ineligible because the 

individual or entity used Federal 

facilities or consulted with Federal 

employees during the Challenge if the 

facilities and employees are made 

available to all individuals and entities 

participating in the Challenge on an 

equitable basis. 

9. Each individual (whether 

competing singly or in a group) or entity 

retains title and full ownership in and 

to their submission and each participant 

expressly reserves all intellectual 

property rights (e.g., copyright) in their 

submission. However, each participant 

grants to NIDA, and others acting on 

behalf of NIDA, a royalty-free nonexclusive worldwide license to use, 

copy for use, and display publicly all 

parts of the submission for the purposes 

of the Challenge. This license may 

include posting or linking to the 

submission on the official NIDA Web 

site and making it available for use by 

the public. 

10. The NIH reserves the right, in its 

sole discretion, to (a) cancel, suspend, 

or modify the Challenge, and/or (b) not 

award any prizes if no entries are 

deemed worthy. 

11. Each individual (whether 

competing singly or in a group) or entity 

agrees to follow applicable local, State, 

and Federal laws and regulations. 

12. Each individual (whether 

participating singly or in a group) and 

entity participating in this Challenge 

must comply with all terms and 

conditions of these rules, and 

participation in this Challenge 

constitutes each such participant’s full 

and unconditional agreement to abide 

by these rules. Winning is contingent 

upon fulfilling all requirements herein. 

Submission Requirements 

Each submission for this Challenge 

should consist of a white paper 

describing a concept for an innovative 

quality measurement and management 

system to measure, manage, and 

improve the quality of clinical care in 

addiction treatment. The white paper 

must describe a novel concept based on 

the latest findings from relevant areas of 

science. It must include the following 

two sections: 

1. A description of candidate clinical 

effects of addiction treatment and how 

these effects could be measured 

(directly or by proxy); a discussion of 

the likely level of these measures in the 

current treatment system, how much 

improvement might be achievable, how 

the measure(s) could conceivably be 

implemented, now or in the future, to 

improve the quality of care; how the 

resulting information could conceivably 

be used to help patients and payers 

select providers; and how the proposed 

measures and systems might be 

evaluated and improved once 

implemented. 

2. A research agenda addressing the 

current state of relevant scientific 

knowledge; the gaps that need to be 

addressed to support the development, 

testing, and use of these novel concepts, 

measures, and systems; and a plan and 

an estimated timeframe for filling those 

gaps. 

The white paper must not contain any 

information directly identifying the 

participants. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Notices 1925 

Registration and Submission Process 

To register for this Challenge, 

participants must go to 

www.challenge.gov and search for 

‘‘Innovations in Measuring and 

Managing Addiction Treatment Quality 

Challenge’’. Click on the title to go to 

the Challenge platform Web site, which 

contains instructions on how to register 

and submit. 

All submissions must be in English. 

Each submission must consist of a PDF 

file, containing the white paper 

document. The PDF documents must be 

formatted to be no larger than 8.5’’ by 

11.0’’, with at least 1 inch margins. The 

white paper must be no more than 20 

pages long. Font size must be no smaller 

than 11 point Arial. The participant 

must not use HHS’s logo or official seal 

or the logo of NIH or NIDA in the 

submission, and must not claim federal 

government endorsement. 

Amount of the Prize 

Up to four monetary prizes may be 

awarded: $35,000 for 1st Place, $30,000 

for 2nd Place, $25,000 for 3rd Place, and 

$10,000 for Honorable Mention for a 

total prize award pool of up to $100,000. 

The names of the winners and the titles 

of their submissions will be posted on 

the NIDA Web site. In addition, NIDA 

may work with winners and a peerreviewed journal to publish articles 

based on the white papers in a special 

issue on the future of quality 

measurement and management systems 

in the field of addiction treatment. The 

award approving official for this 

Challenge is the Director of the National 

Institute on Drug Abuse. 

Payment of the Prize 

Prizes awarded under this Challenge 

will be paid by electronic funds transfer 

and may be subject to Federal income 

taxes. The NIH will comply with the 

Internal Revenue Service withholding 

and reporting requirements, where 

applicable. 

Basis Upon Which Winner Will Be 

Selected 

The judging panel will make 

recommendations to the Award 

Approving Official based upon the 

following five criteria and point 

allocation: 

1. Novelty of the concept (5 points): 

Concepts are to move beyond the 

existing quality measurement and 

management paradigms and 

administrative data elements commonly 

used in the addiction treatment field. 

They are to focus on clinical effects that 

can be obtained as a direct result of 

treatment in the context of what is often 

a chronic, relapsing condition. How 

novel is the concept? Does it address 

important clinical effects that are not 

currently or adequately considered in 

existing quality measurement and 

improvement efforts in the addiction 

treatment field? 

2. Clinical effectiveness of the concept 

(5 points): Are changes in the identified 

effects something that high-quality 

treatment could conceivably affect in a 

meaningful way? How effective would 

improvements in these clinical effects 

likely be in addressing addiction and 

improving other outcomes important to 

patients and other purchasers of care? 

3. Scientific basis for the concept (5 

points): Concepts must rely on the latest 

scientific understanding of addiction 

and its treatment from a broad range of 

fields, as well as the latest science of 

quality measurement and management. 

How meaningfully, comprehensively, 

and effectively does the concept 

incorporate these latest advances in 

areas of science relevant to addiction, its 

treatment, and quality improvement? 

4. Quality of the conceptual model (5 

points): How well is the conceptual 

framework or model developed? How 

well does it consider factors relevant to 

the ultimate success of the concept? 

How well does it address the clinical 

means for improving the candidate 

measures and potential unintended 

consequences of implementing the 

measures and using them to inform, 

gauge, and reward improvement? How 

well does it address the likely impact of 

improvements in these measures on the 

provider industry? 

5. Potential for the concept to be 

implemented and evaluated (5 points): 

Concepts, and the measures and systems 

derived from them, must have the 

potential to be implemented and used in 

at least some types of treatment 

programs or other settings once all 

relevant research gaps have been 

addressed. Is it within the realm of 

possibility that these concepts, 

measures, or quality improvement 

systems could be implemented in at 

least some organizations once all of the 

research gaps have been addressed? 

How useful would the measures be to 

patients and payers making purchasing 

decisions? How reasonable is the plan 

for how the measures and systems could 

be evaluated and improved once 

implemented? 

6. Quality of the research agenda (5 

points): How well does the research 

agenda describe the gaps in the relevant 

areas of science that need to be 

addressed for this novel quality 

measurement and management concept 

to be achieved and implemented? Does 

the agenda describe a logical, feasible 

plan and timeframe for addressing those 

gaps? 

Scores from each criterion will be 

weighted equally. The score for each 

submission will be the sum of the scores 

from each of the 5 voting judges, for a 

maximum of 150 points. NIH reserves 

the right to make an award to 

submissions scoring less than 150 

points if NIH deems any sufficiently 

meritorious. All submissions will be 

held until after the deadline is reached 

for a simultaneous judging process. NIH 

reserves the right to disqualify and 

remove any submission that is deemed, 

in the judging panel’s discretion, 

inappropriate, offensive, defamatory, or 

demeaning. 

The evaluation process will begin by 

anonymizing and removing those that 

are not responsive to this Challenge or 

not in compliance with all rules of 

eligibility. Submissions that are 

responsive and in compliance may then 

undergo a review by NIH program staff 

with expertise in the relevant areas of 

science. These program staff would be 

asked to comment specifically on the 

soundness of the scientific basis for the 

project, the likelihood that any scientific 

advances needed for the concept to meet 

fruition are within the realm of 

possibility, and the quality of the 

research agenda, all as they relate to the 

program official’s area of expertise. 

Judges will examine all responsive and 

compliant submissions, as well 

comments from program staff, if any, 

and score the entries in accordance with 

the judging criteria outlined above. 

Judges will meet to discuss the most 

meritorious submissions. Final 

recommendations will be determined by 

a vote of the judges. 

Challenge Judges 

Director, National Institute on Drug 

Abuse—Ex Officio 

Deputy Director, Center for Clinical 

Trials Network, National Institute on 

Drug Abuse 

Acting Director, Division of 

Epidemiology, Services, and 

Prevention Research, National 

Institute on Drug Abuse 

Chief, Science Policy Branch, Office of 

Science Policy and Communication, 

National Institute on Drug Abuse 

Program Officer, Behavioral and 

Integrative Treatment Branch (BITB), 

Division of Clinical Neuroscience and 

Behavioral Research, National 

Institute of Drug Abuse 

Program Director for Health Services 

Research, Division of Treatment and 

Recovery Research, National Institute 

on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

1926 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Notices 

Additional Information (References) 

1. Eddy, 1998. ‘‘Performance Measurement: 

Problems and Solutions.’’ Health Affairs 

17(4): 7–25. 

2. Institute of Medicine, 1999. Measuring the 

Quality of Health Care: A Statement by 

the National Roundtable on Health Care 

Quality. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press. 

3. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on 

Crossing the Quality Chasm Adaptation 

to Mental Health and Addictive 

Disorders, 2006. Improving Quality of 

Health Care for Mental and SubstanceUse Conditions. Washington, DC: 

National Academies Press. 

4. Fisher et al., 2011. ‘‘Building a Path to 

Accountable Care’’, New England Journal 

of Medicine 365:2445–2447. 

5. McClellan, 2011. ‘‘Reforming Payments to 

Healthcare Providers: The Key to 

Slowing Healthcare Cost Growth while 

Improving Quality?’’ The Journal of 

Economic Perspectives 25(2): 69–92. 

6. Donabedian A, 1980. Explorations in 

Quality Assessment and Monitoring: The 

Definition of Quality and Approaches to 

its Assessment. Ann Arbor, MI. Health 

Administration Press. 

7. Garnick DW, et al., 2002. ‘‘Establishing the 

Feasibility of Performance Measures for 

Alcohol and Other Drugs.’’ Journal of 

Substance Abuse Treatment 23(4):375– 

385. 

8. Garnick, DW, et al., 2011. ‘‘Lessons from 

Five States: Public Sector Use of the 

Washington Circle Performance 

Measures.’’ Journal of Substance Abuse 

Treatment. 40(3):241–254. 

9. National Committee on Quality Assurance, 

2013. Improving Quality and Patient 

Experience: The State of Health Care 

Quality 2013. Washington, DC. 

10. Harris, AHS, et al., 2012 Longer LOS is 

Not Associated with Better Outcomes in 

VHA’s Substance Abuse Residential 

Rehabilitation Treatment Programs. 

Journal of Behavioral Health Services 

Research 39(1): 68–79. 

Dated: January 5, 2015. 

Nora D. Volkow, 

Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 

National Institutes of Health. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00394 Filed 1–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

Center for Scientific Review; Notice of 

Closed Meetings 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is 

hereby given of the following meetings. 

The meetings will be closed to the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 

552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., 

as amended. The grant applications and 

the discussions could disclose 

confidential trade secrets or commercial 

property such as patentable material, 

and personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the grant 

applications, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy. 

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel; AREA: 

Oncological Sciences Grant Applications. 

Date: January 29, 2015. 

Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. 

Contact Person: Sally A Mulhern, Ph.D., 

Scientific Review Officer, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6214, 

MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435– 

5877, mulherns@csr.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: Surgical Sciences, 

Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering 

Integrated Review Group; Medical Imaging 

Study Section. 

Date: February 5–6, 2015. 

Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Sir Francis Drake Hotel, 450 Powell 

Street at Sutter, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Contact Person: Xiang-Ning Li, MD, Ph.D., 

Scientific Review Officer, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5112, 

MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– 

1744, lixiang@csr.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel; Membrane 

Biophysics. 

Date: February 5–6, 2015. 

Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One 

Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin 

Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. 

Contact Person: Mike Radtke, Ph.D., 

Scientific Review Officer, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4176, 

MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– 

1728, radtkem@csr.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel; 

Hypertension and Microcirculation. 

Date: February 6, 2015. 

Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 

(Telephone Conference Call). 

Contact Person: Katherine M Malinda, 

Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4140, 

MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435– 

0912, Katherine_Malinda@csr.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: Molecular, Cellular 

and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated 

Review Group; Molecular 

Neuropharmacology and Signaling Study 

Section. 

Date: February 9–10, 2015. 

Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Lorien Hotel & Spa, 1600 King 

Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. 

Contact Person: Deborah L Lewis, Ph.D., 

Scientific Review Officer, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4183, 

MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–408– 

9129, lewisdeb@csr.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: Center for Scientific 

Review Special Emphasis Panel; 

Macromolecular Structure and Function B. 

Date: February 9–10, 2015. 

Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 

Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. 

Contact Person: David R Jollie, Ph.D., 

Scientific Review Officer, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4166, 

MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 437– 

7927, jollieda@csr.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and 

Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review 

Group; Pathophysiological Basis of Mental 

Disorders and Addictions Study Section. 

Date: February 11–12, 2015. 

Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Embassy Suites—Baltimore, 222 St. 

Paul Place, Baltimore, MD 201202. 

Contact Person: Boris P Sokolov, Ph.D., 

Scientific Review Officer, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5217A, 

MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–408– 

9115, bsokolov@csr.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: Healthcare Delivery 

and Methodologies Integrated Review Group; 

Dissemination and Implementation Research 

in Health Study Section. 

Date: February 11, 2015. 

Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One 

Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin 

Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. 

Contact Person: Martha L Hare, Ph.D., 

Scientific Review Officer, Center for 

Scientific Review, National Institutes of 

Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3154, 

Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451–8504, 

harem@mail.nih.gov. 

Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and 

Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; 

Xenobiotic and Nutrient Disposition and 

Action Study Section. 

Date: February 11, 2015. 

Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 

applications. 

Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda 

(Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 8120 

Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814. 

Contact Person: Martha Garcia, Ph.D., 

Scientific Reviewer Officer, Center for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES