B&B ImpoRmA,,rit3m lm^se MAkm^oEmE@ 300 @loe=r. @RSL-B UOULXVAAD Utaloca Z077Z 11 USA 11 taol) 24@l to RMP NEW JERSEY RM 00042 JULY/AUGUST 1974 REVIEW of $3,970,024. The New Jersey May I application included a total request The NAC approved the application in the amount of $3,190,000 and the funding level was set at $3,031,042, to support program staff and 7 projects (two of the latter had two parts each). The NAC considered the program superior with an experienced and capable staff, directed by a strong and effective RAG with broad community involvement. July 1 Application - The July application requests $1,710,548 to support,5 program thrusts. The request is broad and comprehensive in several areas, particularly the Health Resources Planning proposal with its 7 subcomponents. Elements of two programmatic areas in the May application are proposed to be - advanced by this applic;ieion's requests: the cost containment activity is proposed to be extended to a preventive program for the elderly in conjunction with the Admin. of Aging program; and hypertension is proposed to be extended to additional screening centers. Three 11 newli areas of emphasis in the application are: (1) Cultural Awareness Program, an educational effort for groups of providers, to improve health care as a result of better understanding (ultimately to be extended to other Regions); (2) the Health Resources Planning proposal which comprises 7 sub- components: RMP-CHP consortium to improve health data collection and reporting systems, neighborhood health center management to improve efficiency and assure continuity of care, hospital plan development (guidelines for improving applications for Certificate of Need), ambulatory care (outpatient clinics) cost analysis study, student health services consortium and clinical education facilities coordination for health manpower education; (3) Consumers Health Education-training for coordinators-at pilot centers in community hospitals, to be developed in coordination with the Rutgers Medical School. In the main the proposals are directed at attaining the major program goals for improving health care in the state. EO/7/15/74 JULY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Critique: Go CD C) CD -C:) CD CD C,4 cn CD @CD C:) -t m 0 C) u (n C) CD (m CD 0 ()O 0 -r-i C:) r-) Lr) (O CD C3,N oo CD C:) 14 ui ce LLI tn LLJ z z 0 0 (L LU 0 u L) CL LU 0 0 Lj 0 V) (L u < I I >- cc z z cn :3 LL, tL) LU LL V) x LL -i z LU LU tz (4 U) I " m I' 0 I( -C 0 0 z CY L) (i z cc n LD 2-r r_ _:i -j 7- V) -Y -C 0 :c ce 0 L 0 CK 0 CY L) 0. 0. U. tj a. 0. co 4 tn 0 z N C'4 (In m :q m m u L) 0 0 0 cn Ul% -4 ui LLJ LU 0 z r UJ i -i i ; Ll- i i i i : . : i i i I - i RMP NEW JERSEY Rm ooo 42 MAY/JUNE 1974 RI-'VIEW Request: $3,970.024 $3,190 Committee Recoimncndation Superior in all aspects Overall assessment by individual reviewers: Critique: Panel B considered NJPM to be a superior region in all respects: strong, effective leadership; an excellent, experienced staff in terms of numbers, skills and competencies; and a RAG, not only representative of the Region, but one whose members have remained interested and active in reviewing the accumulated data to determine needs of the health care delivery system and then charting a programmatic course to meet those needs. Programmatic efforts have been tailored to span the entire set of Goals relating to access, quality assurance, categorical and cost containment as well as a beginning exploration as to how CHP and RMP may prepare for new legislative developments. The Region was commended by Committee for some of the fascinating areas in which the program has been involved; cy medical service, particularly new issues such as better access, emergen quality of care assurance, improvement of health care services to the inner-city poor, setting standards for quality for certificate of need type activities, and for the assistance given to the development of CH@ "b" agencies in N.J. (major support given to development of 3 of 4 existing "b" agencies in New Jersey). Relationships with CHP within the State over-all appear to be good; however, one "b" agency director submitted a -scathing letter recommending disapproval of the entire RNP application. It was later determined that this "b" agency director had held the position for only 4 or 5 months and that after review of the application'. the "bl' agency board recommended approval. committee concurred that this was a superJ-or region and would.:well utilize funds made available to it. JULY/AUGUST REVIEW Estimated request as of May 1974: $600,000 EO/5/27/74 NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL June 13-14, 1974' Council concurred with Committee recommendation DRMP FUNDING DECISION $3,031 042 EO/7/2/74