Notice of Hearing: Reconsideration of Disapproval of Iowa State Plan Amendments 05-003, 9565-9567 [06-1647]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2006 / Notices
HHAs and its survey process in ACHC’s
Surveyor Training Manual with the
Medicare HHA conditions for
participation and our State Operations
Manual. Our review and evaluation of
ACHC’s deeming application, which
were conducted as described in section
III of this final notice yielded the
following:
• To meet the full intent of all
Medicare standards and conditions,
ACHC crosswalked the corresponding
Medicare standard to each of its
standards and stated that HHAs
undergoing a deemed status survey from
ACHC would meet the ACHC standard
as well as the corresponding Medicare
standard.
• ACHC added time frames to
respond to complaints in all categories
listed in its complaint process.
• ACHC revised its survey procedures
to add triggers for identification of
Immediate Jeopardy and the guidelines
to determine when Immediate Jeopardy
is removed.
• ACHC amended its guidelines for
determining survey frequency for HHAs
in accordance with the State Operations
Manual (SOM) 2195.
• In order to be consistent with our
policy, ACHC modified the language in
its policies to state that Branch Office
Additions must first be approved by the
CMS Regional Office before scheduling
a survey.
• ACHC modified its policies to
conform with our standards in SOM
2200 that HHAs applying for an initial
certification survey provide care to at
least 10 patients and that 7 of those 10
are still active at the time of the initial
survey.
• To meet our standards listed in
SOM 2200C4, ACHC amended its
policies to include criteria necessary for
the required number of home visits
required during the survey.
• ACHC developed a systematic way
to ensure that the appropriate number of
active and closed records was reviewed
for the size of the facility being surveyed
in order to meet the standards listed at
SOM 2200C5.
• ACHC established a new policy that
requires all deemed HHAs to submit a
Plan of Correction for all deficiencies
identified.
• A new policy was developed by
ACHC concerning the qualifications and
training necessary for lead surveyors.
• ACHC will implement an annual
training program for all its surveyors
and incorporate a measurement tool that
evaluates effectiveness of training.
• To meet the requirements listed in
§ 488.4(b)(3)(v), ACHC established a
policy that permits its surveyors to serve
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Feb 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
as witnesses if we take an adverse action
based on accreditation findings.
• ACHC revised its policies to
eliminate pre-survey contact and
notification of surveyors to HHAs in
order to meet our requirements of fully
unannounced HHA surveys.
B. Term of Approval
Based on the review and observations
described in section III of this final
notice, we have determined that ACHC’s
requirements for HHAs meet or exceed
our requirements. Therefore, we
recognize the ACHC as a national
accreditation organization for HHAs that
request participation in the Medicare
program, effective February 24, 2006
through February 24 2009.
V. Collection of Information
Requirements
This final notice does not impose any
information collection and recordkeeping requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Consequently, it does not need to be
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the authority
of the PRA.
VI. Regulatory Impact Statement
We have examined the impact of this
final notice as required by Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (Public Law 98–
354). Executive Order 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and,
when regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety effects; distributive impacts;
and equity). The RFA requires agencies
to analyze options for regulatory relief
for small businesses. For purposes of the
RFA, States and individuals are not
considered small entities.
Also, section 1102(b) of the Act
requires the Secretary to prepare a
regulatory impact analysis for any
notice that may have a significant
impact on the operations of a substantial
number of small rural hospitals. Such
an analysis must conform to the
provisions of section 604 of the RFA.
For purposes of section 1102(b) of the
Act, we consider a small rural hospital
as a hospital that is located outside of
a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has
fewer than 100 beds.
This final notice recognizes ACHC as
a national accreditation organization for
HHAs that request participation in the
Medicare program. There are neither
significant costs nor savings for the
program and administrative budgets of
Medicare. Therefore, this final notice is
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9565
not a major rule as defined in Title 5,
United States Code, section 804(2) and
is not an economically significant rule
under Executive Order 12866. We have
determined, and the Secretary certifies,
that this final notice will not result in
a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities and will not
have a significant effect on the
operations of a substantial number of
small rural hospitals. Therefore, we are
not preparing analyses for either the
RFA or section 1102(b) of the Act.
In an effort to better assure the health,
safety, and services of beneficiaries in
HHAs already certified as well as
provide relief to State budgets in this
time of tight fiscal restraints, we deem
HHAs accredited by ACHC as meeting
our Medicare requirements. Thus, we
continue our focus on assuring the
health and safety of services by
providers and suppliers already
certified for participation in a costeffective manner.
In accordance with the provisions of
Executive Order 12866, this notice was
not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. In accordance
with Executive Order 13132, we have
determined that this final notice will
not significantly affect the rights of
States, local or tribal governments.
Authority: Section 1865 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395bb)
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance
Program; No. 93.773 Medicare Hospital
Insurance Program; and No. 93.774,
Medicare—Supplemental Medical Insurance
Program)
Dated: January 30, 2006.
Mark B. McClellan,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
[FR Doc. 06–1650 Filed 2–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services
Notice of Hearing: Reconsideration of
Disapproval of Iowa State Plan
Amendments 05–003
Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Notice of hearing.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces an
administrative hearing to be held on
April 13, 2006, at the Richard Bolling
Federal Building, 601 E. 12th Street,
Room 235, Kansas City Conference
Room, Kansas City, MO 64106–2898, to
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
9566
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2006 / Notices
reconsider CMS’ decision to disapprove
Iowa State plan amendment 05–003.
Closing Date: Requests to participate
in the hearing as a party must be
received by the presiding officer by
March 13, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen Scully-Hayes, Presiding
Officer, CMS, Lord Baltimore Drive,
Mail Stop LB–23–20, Baltimore,
Maryland 21244, Telephone: (410) 786–
2055.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice announces an
administrative hearing to reconsider
CMS’ decision to disapprove Iowa State
plan amendment (SPA) 05–003 which
was submitted on March 29, 2005. This
SPA was disapproved on November 23,
2005. Under SPA 05–003, Iowa sought
to simplify its State plan provisions on
drug pricing, reflecting the
implementation of State supplemental
rebates and preferred drug list.
This amendment was disapproved
because it did not comport with the
requirements of the Federal regulations
at 42 CFR 447.331(c) and sections
1902(a)(54) and 1927 of the Social
Security Act (the Act) and
implementing regulations.
Specifically, Iowa failed to
demonstrate that SPA 05–003 is
consistent with the Federal upper limit
(FUL) regulations at 42 CFR 447.331(c).
This regulation provides that the upper
limit for payment for multiple source
drugs for which a specific limit has been
established does not apply if a
physician certifies in his or her own
handwriting that a specific brand is
medically necessary. The State asserted
that the physician certification
provision (regarding the medical
necessity of a brand name drug) need
not be followed as part of the State’s
drug reimbursement methodology
because the net cost, after rebates, of
these brand name drugs will not exceed
the FUL. The State, however, failed to
demonstrate how this assertion is
consistent with the plain language of the
regulation which provides for an FUL
based on State payment rates for
prescription drugs (without regard to
manufacturer rebates), and an FUL
exemption based on physician
certification.
The State also failed to demonstrate
compliance with sections 1902(a)(54)
and 1927 of the Act, which provide for
the calculation of rebates for covered
outpatient drugs, based on payment that
was made under the State plan. Section
1927(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides for an
offset against medical assistance to
account for such rebates. Such an offset
would not be necessary if the reference
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Feb 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
to ‘‘payment’’ was intended to be a net
payment and include rebates that are
eventually provided under section 1927.
The State did not demonstrate that its
methodology is consistent with sections
1902(a)(54) and 1927 of the Act which
are not intended to change State
payment rates for prescription drugs
and which, as noted previously, provide
for calculation of rebates based on State
payment.
For the reasons cited above, and after
consultation with the Secretary, as
required by the Federal regulations at 42
CFR section 430.15(c)(2), Iowa SPA 05–
003 was disapproved.
Section 1116 of the Act and Federal
regulations at 42 CFR Part 430, establish
Department procedures that provide an
administrative hearing for
reconsideration of a disapproval of a
State plan or plan amendment. CMS is
required to publish a copy of the notice
to a State Medicaid agency that informs
the agency of the time and place of the
hearing, and the issues to be considered.
If we subsequently notify the agency of
additional issues that will be considered
at the hearing, we will also publish that
notice.
Any individual or group that wants to
participate in the hearing as a party
must petition the presiding officer
within 15 days after publication of this
notice, in accordance with the
requirements contained at 42 CFR
430.76(b)(2). Any interested person or
organization that wants to participate as
amicus curiae must petition the
presiding officer before the hearing
begins in accordance with the
requirements contained at 42 CFR
430.76(c). If the hearing is later
rescheduled, the presiding officer will
notify all participants.
The notice to Iowa announcing an
administrative hearing to reconsider the
disapproval of its SPA reads as follows:
Mr. Daniel W. Hart, Assistant Attorney
General, Counsel to the Iowa Department of
Human Services, Regents and Human
Services Division, 1305 E. Walnut Street, Des
Moines, IA 50319–0109.
Dear Mr. Hart:
I am responding to your request for
reconsideration of the decision to disapprove
the Iowa State plan amendment (SPA) 05–
003, which was submitted on March 29,
2005, and disapproved on November 23,
2005.
Under SPA 05–003, Iowa was seeking to
simplify its State plan provisions on drug
pricing, reflecting the implementation of
State supplemental rebates and the preferred
drug list.
This amendment was disapproved because
it did not comport with the requirements of
the Federal regulations at 42 CFR 447.331(c)
and sections 1902(a)(54) and 1927 of the
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Social Security Act (the Act) and
implementing regulations.
Specifically, Iowa failed to demonstrate
that SPA 05–003 is consistent with the
Federal upper limit (FUL) regulations at 42
CFR 447.331(c). This regulation provides that
the upper limit for payment for multiple
source drugs for which a specific limit has
been established does not apply if a
physician certifies in his or her own
handwriting that a specific brand is
medically necessary. The State asserted that
the physician certification provision
(regarding the medical necessity of a brand
name drug) need not be followed as part of
the State’s drug reimbursement methodology
because the net cost, after rebates, of these
brand name drugs will not exceed the FUL.
The State, however, failed to demonstrate
how this assertion is consistent with the
plain language of the regulation which
provides for an FUL based on State payment
rates for prescription drugs (without regard to
manufacturer rebates), and an FUL
exemption based on physician certification.
The State also failed to demonstrate
compliance with sections 1902(a)(54) and
1927 of the Act, which provide for the
calculation of rebates for covered outpatient
drugs, based on payment that was made
under the State plan. Section 1927(b)(1)(B) of
the Act provides for an offset against medical
assistance to account for such rebates. Such
an offset would not be necessary if the
reference to ‘‘payment’’ was intended to be
a net payment and include rebates that are
eventually provided under section 1927. The
State did not demonstrate that its
methodology is consistent with sections
1902(a)(54) and 1927 of the Act which are
not intended to change State payment rates
for prescription drugs and which, as noted
previously, provide for calculation of rebates
based on State payment.
For the reasons cited above, and after
consultation with the Secretary, as required
by 42 CFR 430.15(c)(2), Iowa 05–003 was
disapproved.
I am scheduling a hearing on your request
for reconsideration to be held on April 13,
2006, at the Richard Bolling Federal
Building, 601 E. 12th Street, Room 235,
Kansas City Conference Room, Kansas City,
MO 64106–2898, to reconsider the decision
to disapprove SPA 05–003. If this date is not
acceptable, we would be glad to set another
date that is mutually agreeable to the parties.
The hearing will be governed by the
procedures prescribed at 42 CFR Part 430.
I am designating Ms. Kathleen ScullyHayes as the presiding officer. If these
arrangements present any problems, please
contact the presiding officer at (410) 786–
2055. In order to facilitate any
communication which may be necessary
between the parties to the hearing, please
notify the presiding officer to indicate
acceptability of the hearing date that has
been scheduled and provide names of the
individuals who will represent the State at
the hearing.
Sincerely,
Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D.
Section 1116 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. section 1316); 42 CFR
section 430.18)
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
24FEN1
9567
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2006 / Notices
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 13.714, Medicaid Assistance
Program)
agencies for the purpose of carrying out
responsibilities under programs funded
under part A of Title IV of the Act. To
Administration for Children and
assist OCSE and the Office of Family
Families
Assistance in measuring savings to the
TANF program of Family Assistance in
Proposed Information Collection
measuring savings to the TANF program
Activity; Comment Request
attributable to the use of NDNH data
matches, the State TANF agencies have
Proposed Projects:
Title: Temporary Assistance for Needy agreed to provide OCSE with a written
description of the performance outputs
Families (TANF/National Directory of
and outcomes attributable to the State
New Hires (NDNH) Match Results
TANF agencies’ use of NDNH match
Report.
results. This information will help
OMB No.: New Collection.
OCSE demonstrate how the NDNH
Description: Section 453(j)(3) of the
supports the President’s Management
Social Security Act (the Act) allows for
Agenda as well as OCSE’s mission and
matching between NDNH (maintained
strategic goals.
by the Federal Office of Child Support
Respondents: State TANF Agencies.
Enforcement (OCSE) and State TANF
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Dated: February 13, 2006.
Mark B. McClellan,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
[FR Doc. 06–1647 Filed 2–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES
Instrument
Number of
respondents
Number of
responses
per
respondent
Average
burden hours
per response
Total burden
hours
TANF/NDNH Match Results Report ........................................................................
40
4
.17
27
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 27
In compliance with the requirements
of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Administration for Children and
Families is soliciting public comment
on the specific aspects of the
information collection described above.
Copies of the proposed collection of
information can be obtained and
comments may be forwarded by writing
to the Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Administration,
Office of Information Services, 370
L’Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington,
DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance
Officer. E-mail address:
infocollection@acf.hhs.gov. All requests
should be identified by the title of the
information collection.
The Department specifically requests
comments on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted
within 60 days of this publication.
Dated: February 16, 2006.
Robert Sargis,
Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 06–1699 Filed 2–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–01–M
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
Title: Child Care and Development
Fund Annual Aggregate Report.
OMB No.: 0970–0150.
Description: Section 658K of the Child
Care and Development Block Grant Act
of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–508, 42 U.S.C.
9858) requires that the States and the
Territories submit annual aggregate data
on the children and families receiving
direct services under the Child Care and
Development Fund. The implementing
regulations for the statutorily required
reporting are at 45 CFR 98.70. Annual
aggregate reports include data elements
represented in the ACF–800. The
Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) uses aggregate data to
determine the scope, type, and methods
of child care delivery. This provides
ACF with the information necessary to
make reports to Congress, address
national child care needs, offer
technical assistance to grantees, meet
performance measures, and conduct
research. Consistent with the statute and
regulations, ACF requests extension of
the ACF–800.
Respondents: States, the District of
Columbia, and the Territories, including
Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, and the
Northern Mariana Islands.
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES
Number of
respondents
Instrument
ACF–800 ..........................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Feb 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Number of
responses per
respondent
56
E:\FR\FM\24FEN1.SGM
1
24FEN1
Average
burden hours
per response
40
Total burden
hours
2,240
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9565-9567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1647]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Notice of Hearing: Reconsideration of Disapproval of Iowa State
Plan Amendments 05-003
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Notice of hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces an administrative hearing to be held on
April 13, 2006, at the Richard Bolling Federal Building, 601 E. 12th
Street, Room 235, Kansas City Conference Room, Kansas City, MO 64106-
2898, to
[[Page 9566]]
reconsider CMS' decision to disapprove Iowa State plan amendment 05-
003.
Closing Date: Requests to participate in the hearing as a party
must be received by the presiding officer by March 13, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scully-Hayes, Presiding
Officer, CMS, Lord Baltimore Drive, Mail Stop LB-23-20, Baltimore,
Maryland 21244, Telephone: (410) 786-2055.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice announces an administrative hearing to reconsider CMS'
decision to disapprove Iowa State plan amendment (SPA) 05-003 which was
submitted on March 29, 2005. This SPA was disapproved on November 23,
2005. Under SPA 05-003, Iowa sought to simplify its State plan
provisions on drug pricing, reflecting the implementation of State
supplemental rebates and preferred drug list.
This amendment was disapproved because it did not comport with the
requirements of the Federal regulations at 42 CFR 447.331(c) and
sections 1902(a)(54) and 1927 of the Social Security Act (the Act) and
implementing regulations.
Specifically, Iowa failed to demonstrate that SPA 05-003 is
consistent with the Federal upper limit (FUL) regulations at 42 CFR
447.331(c). This regulation provides that the upper limit for payment
for multiple source drugs for which a specific limit has been
established does not apply if a physician certifies in his or her own
handwriting that a specific brand is medically necessary. The State
asserted that the physician certification provision (regarding the
medical necessity of a brand name drug) need not be followed as part of
the State's drug reimbursement methodology because the net cost, after
rebates, of these brand name drugs will not exceed the FUL. The State,
however, failed to demonstrate how this assertion is consistent with
the plain language of the regulation which provides for an FUL based on
State payment rates for prescription drugs (without regard to
manufacturer rebates), and an FUL exemption based on physician
certification.
The State also failed to demonstrate compliance with sections
1902(a)(54) and 1927 of the Act, which provide for the calculation of
rebates for covered outpatient drugs, based on payment that was made
under the State plan. Section 1927(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides for an
offset against medical assistance to account for such rebates. Such an
offset would not be necessary if the reference to ``payment'' was
intended to be a net payment and include rebates that are eventually
provided under section 1927. The State did not demonstrate that its
methodology is consistent with sections 1902(a)(54) and 1927 of the Act
which are not intended to change State payment rates for prescription
drugs and which, as noted previously, provide for calculation of
rebates based on State payment.
For the reasons cited above, and after consultation with the
Secretary, as required by the Federal regulations at 42 CFR section
430.15(c)(2), Iowa SPA 05-003 was disapproved.
Section 1116 of the Act and Federal regulations at 42 CFR Part 430,
establish Department procedures that provide an administrative hearing
for reconsideration of a disapproval of a State plan or plan amendment.
CMS is required to publish a copy of the notice to a State Medicaid
agency that informs the agency of the time and place of the hearing,
and the issues to be considered. If we subsequently notify the agency
of additional issues that will be considered at the hearing, we will
also publish that notice.
Any individual or group that wants to participate in the hearing as
a party must petition the presiding officer within 15 days after
publication of this notice, in accordance with the requirements
contained at 42 CFR 430.76(b)(2). Any interested person or organization
that wants to participate as amicus curiae must petition the presiding
officer before the hearing begins in accordance with the requirements
contained at 42 CFR 430.76(c). If the hearing is later rescheduled, the
presiding officer will notify all participants.
The notice to Iowa announcing an administrative hearing to
reconsider the disapproval of its SPA reads as follows:
Mr. Daniel W. Hart, Assistant Attorney General, Counsel to the Iowa
Department of Human Services, Regents and Human Services Division,
1305 E. Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50319-0109.
Dear Mr. Hart:
I am responding to your request for reconsideration of the
decision to disapprove the Iowa State plan amendment (SPA) 05-003,
which was submitted on March 29, 2005, and disapproved on November
23, 2005.
Under SPA 05-003, Iowa was seeking to simplify its State plan
provisions on drug pricing, reflecting the implementation of State
supplemental rebates and the preferred drug list.
This amendment was disapproved because it did not comport with
the requirements of the Federal regulations at 42 CFR 447.331(c) and
sections 1902(a)(54) and 1927 of the Social Security Act (the Act)
and implementing regulations.
Specifically, Iowa failed to demonstrate that SPA 05-003 is
consistent with the Federal upper limit (FUL) regulations at 42 CFR
447.331(c). This regulation provides that the upper limit for
payment for multiple source drugs for which a specific limit has
been established does not apply if a physician certifies in his or
her own handwriting that a specific brand is medically necessary.
The State asserted that the physician certification provision
(regarding the medical necessity of a brand name drug) need not be
followed as part of the State's drug reimbursement methodology
because the net cost, after rebates, of these brand name drugs will
not exceed the FUL. The State, however, failed to demonstrate how
this assertion is consistent with the plain language of the
regulation which provides for an FUL based on State payment rates
for prescription drugs (without regard to manufacturer rebates), and
an FUL exemption based on physician certification.
The State also failed to demonstrate compliance with sections
1902(a)(54) and 1927 of the Act, which provide for the calculation
of rebates for covered outpatient drugs, based on payment that was
made under the State plan. Section 1927(b)(1)(B) of the Act provides
for an offset against medical assistance to account for such
rebates. Such an offset would not be necessary if the reference to
``payment'' was intended to be a net payment and include rebates
that are eventually provided under section 1927. The State did not
demonstrate that its methodology is consistent with sections
1902(a)(54) and 1927 of the Act which are not intended to change
State payment rates for prescription drugs and which, as noted
previously, provide for calculation of rebates based on State
payment.
For the reasons cited above, and after consultation with the
Secretary, as required by 42 CFR 430.15(c)(2), Iowa 05-003 was
disapproved.
I am scheduling a hearing on your request for reconsideration to
be held on April 13, 2006, at the Richard Bolling Federal Building,
601 E. 12th Street, Room 235, Kansas City Conference Room, Kansas
City, MO 64106-2898, to reconsider the decision to disapprove SPA
05-003. If this date is not acceptable, we would be glad to set
another date that is mutually agreeable to the parties. The hearing
will be governed by the procedures prescribed at 42 CFR Part 430.
I am designating Ms. Kathleen Scully-Hayes as the presiding
officer. If these arrangements present any problems, please contact
the presiding officer at (410) 786-2055. In order to facilitate any
communication which may be necessary between the parties to the
hearing, please notify the presiding officer to indicate
acceptability of the hearing date that has been scheduled and
provide names of the individuals who will represent the State at the
hearing.
Sincerely,
Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D.
Section 1116 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. section 1316);
42 CFR section 430.18)
[[Page 9567]]
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 13.714, Medicaid
Assistance Program)
Dated: February 13, 2006.
Mark B. McClellan,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
[FR Doc. 06-1647 Filed 2-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
