* 00 297* April. 1969 OTHER POSSIBLR,, LEGISLATIVE ISSUES There are a number of other possible legislative issues which, of perhaps leSSEir import or not quite so pressing, also warrant mention And some consideration. Authorization for Construction This issue, wj,j-ch was considered to be of major importance during the early days of the program and was treated accordi.nS,-l-y in the "Repo3-t on PZFP to the President and the Coiig.Less," now appears to be dead. There is littJ.e or no indication from the Regions that th(-,. need for or desirability of such authority is critical or great. Current efforts by the AdniinistrA- tiori to reduce inflation and the anticipated budget pressures @,7oulcl Seem to make any efforts in this direction quixotic. Cost or intatchi There presently are no formal RIMP cost sharing or matching require- ments for either planning or operational- activities except for renovation (90% Federal- - 10% local.). The Reaul-al--ions state that when approving pro- jects, the potential. ut-.Lli-zot-4--on of noiifecle-ral resources in carrying out proc,ram activities must be taken into account, but to date this has not been a majoi: pr@ictical- consideration. Some Regions 'nave adopted proce- dures regarding the vracli.,al pliasino out of pro@ects or the transference of their su,,)poi:t to community resources, but no specific policy in this regard has yet been adopted and applied nationally. 2-- One of the strengths of MIP has been the ability to full-fund prooi-am activities without having to worry about obtaining continued local support. However, some persons have argued that if matching money were re(Iiiired, it would bri.rio increased local involvement to the procram. Given tli(2, current financial status of most medical schools, cost sharing potei-iti@tl-],y might increase. the outreach of the program by forcing @T to look to the community for financial support. In addition, cost sharing also lqotil.d multiply the impact of the available R@iT funds. The basis for cost sharing or matching in a program dealing with and composed of multiple institutions and organizations would pose subs taiitial administrative prob- lems, bo,,!ever. One very practical consideration is that a program with an authori- zati.on l(@vel (or appropriations) of even $2--300 million might well elicit Congressi,onal pressures for local matching, even though that same program at a $65--120 million level had not. l@ o,@ial-L7atic)il An @Liicreased. emphasis on regional- cooperative arrangements or region- ,alizatio-,l of lica-l-tl-i resources and services, could raise. questions with respe ct to the present prohibition against interference with the patterns. or methods of financing, of patient care or professional practice, or wit',, fire administration of hospitals". Strict interpretation of this provisic,-.i in the Act coul.@l limit severely the opportunities for Regioi-lal -3- Medical PrograTps to contribute to the regiotializati.on of health resources and services. However, to date this prohibition has not appeared to have caused any riiajor difficulties; and in all. probability any attempt to change or to clarify it woul.d raise more problems than it would solve. Broader Involvement in the Pr Although medical schools and centers, community hospitals, practicing physicians, and by extension ffiedical- societies, make up the primary con- stitueiicy of I?!.iT, the ir@ix and relative influence of these groups varies considerably aiiioii,- Regions. Community hospital interests in particular, have been concerned about their limited involvement in the @'4P decision- uiakilig and planp.-.i-n- processes and operational projc-@cts. There has also been implied criticism from certain Congressmen about P@IP funds not getting beyond the medical- school (or "deai-@'s office") Perhaps some consideration needs to be given to means by which broader participation by community hospitals and other provider groups, as wel-I as community and consumer interests mi.ghL: be insured. Cost sharing, redefi- nition of the function of Reclo-ial Advisory Groups, and increase(! cooper- atiop with both state and areawide C@iP efforts liak7e been suggested as possible ways to accomplish this purpose. The recent AIIA position with respect to hospital pl.anning and financial requirements may provide an impetus Ezqd opportunity for greater W@,@T support of individual hospital pl.anning efforts and cooperation and collaboration with CIIP areav7ide plan- ni.iig agencies. @a @@p c@ The present explicit emphasis of Pd,!P is on iiiTrovi.iig the quality of care -- "To afford to the Ttiedica.3- profession and the riedi-cal institutions of the Nation the opportunity of i,.ial-,ing avail-able to their patients the latest advances in the diagnosis and treatment of these diseases." Consideration perhaps should be given to including within the procarqm's broad purposes an explicit reference to increasing or improving the capacity of the professions and hospitals for providing care through regi.onalizat:Lon.