Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations, 43206-43208 [2013-17295]

Download as PDF emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 43206 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Notices public health implications, on the basis of ATSDR’s authority to prepare toxicological profiles for substances not found at sites on the National Priorities List. The agency will do so in order to ‘‘...establish and maintain inventory of literature, research, and studies on the health effects of toxic substances’’ under CERCLA Section 104(i)(1)(B), to respond to requests for consultation under section 104(i)(4), and to support the sitespecific response actions conducted by ATSDR, as otherwise necessary. DATES: Nominations from the Substance Priority List and/or additional substances must be submitted on or before August 19, 2013. ADDRESSES: You may submit nominations, identified by Docket No. ATSDR–2013–0002, by any of the following methods: *Internet: Access the Federal eRulemaking portal at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Mail: Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE., MS F–57, Atlanta, Ga., 30333 Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All relevant comments will be posted without change. This means that no confidential business information or other confidential information should be submitted in response to this notice. Refer to the section Submission of Nominations (below) for the specific information required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please contact Commander Jessilynn B. Taylor, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE., MS F–57, Atlanta, Ga., 30333, Email: tpcandidatecomments@cdc.gov; phone: 1–800–232–4636. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) [42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.] amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) [42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.] by establishing certain requirements for ATSDR and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with regard to hazardous substances most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL). Among these statutory requirements is a mandate for the ATSDR Administrator to prepare toxicological profiles for each substance included on the Priority List of Hazardous Substances. This list identifies 275 hazardous substances that ATSDR and EPA have determined pose VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:33 Jul 18, 2013 Jkt 229001 the most significant current potential threat to human health. The availability of the revised list of the 275 priority substances was announced in the Federal Register on November 3, 2011 (76 FR 68193). For prior versions of the list of substances, see Federal Register notices dated April 17, 1987 (52 FR 12866); October 20, 1988 (53 FR 41280); October 26, 1989 (54 FR 43619); October 17,1990 (55 FR 42067); October 17, 1991 (56 FR 52166); October 28, 1992 (57 FR 48801); February 28, 1994 (59 FR 9486); April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18744); November 17, 1997 (62 FR 61332); October 21, 1999 (64 FR 56792); October 25, 2001 (66 FR 54014), November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63098); December 7, 2005 (70 FR 70284); and March 6, 2008 (73 FR 12178). Substances To Be Evaluated for Set 27 Toxicological Profiles Each year, ATSDR develops a list of substances to be considered for toxicological profile development. The Set 27 nomination process includes consideration of all substances on ATSDR’s Priority List of Hazardous Substances, also known as the Substance Priority List (SPL), as well as other substances nominated by the public. The 275 substances on the SPL will be considered for Set 27 Toxicological Profile development. This list may be found at the following Web site: www.atsdr.cdc.gov/SPL and in the docket at www.regulations.gov Submission of Nominations for the Evaluation of Set 27 Proposed Substances: Today’s notice invites voluntary public nominations for substances included on the SPL and for substances not listed on the SPL. All nominations should include the full name of the nominator, affiliation, email address. When nominating a non-SPL substance, please include the rationale for the nomination. Please note email addresses will not be posted on www.regulations.gov. ATSDR will evaluate all data and information associated with nominated substances and will determine the final list of substances to be chosen for toxicological profile development. Substances will be chosen according to ATSDR’s specific guidelines for selection. These guidelines can be found in the Selection Criteria announced in the Federal Register on May 7, 1993 (58FR27286–27287). A hard copy of the Selection Criteria is available upon request or may be accessed at: https:// www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/ guidance/ criteria_for_selectingtpsupport.pdf. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 nomination period. Nominations received after the closing date will be marked as late and may be considered only if time and resources permit. Dated: July 11, 2013. Sascha Chaney, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. [FR Doc. 2013–17355 Filed 7–18–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163–70–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-13–13ZZ] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404–639–7570 and send comments to LeRoy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to omb@cdc.gov. Comments are invited 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) ways to enhance 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. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Proposed Project Evaluation of the SAMHSA PDMP Electronic Health Record (EHR) Integration and Interoperability Expansion Program—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Notices Background and Brief Description In 2009, drug overdose deaths became the leading cause of injury death in the United States (U.S.), exceeding motor vehicle traffic crash deaths for the first time, a trend that continued in 2010. Prescription drugs, particularly opioid pain relievers, have been identified as the main driver of this increase. The number of overdose deaths per year involving opioid pain relievers increased more than four-fold from 1999 to 2010 (from 4,030 to 16,651), outnumbering overdose deaths involving all illicit drugs combined. Morbidity associated with opioid pain reliever abuse increased in parallel. The rate of emergency department visits associated with the misuse or abuse use of opioid pain relievers increased 153% from 2004 to 2011, while rates for illicit drugs remained largely stable. Concurrent to this rise in overdose death rates, the sales of opioid pain relievers have increased four-fold since 1999. According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, the primary source of prescription drugs for nonmedical use is from prescribed and dispensed prescriptions; more than 70% of those who reported non-medical use of pain relievers said they obtained the pain reliever they most recently used from a friend or relative. Moreover, multiple studies have found an association between increased opioid prescribing—in the amount prescribed per prescription, the total days’ supply, and the number of prescriptions per patient—and increased morbidity and mortality in the U.S. over the last 10 to 15 years. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are now recognized as a key tool in federal, state, and local efforts to address prescription drug abuse and misuse. PDMPs are state databases to which pharmacies and other dispensers report dispensed outpatient controlled substance prescription information. Forty-nine states have passed legislation authorizing a PDMP, and 45 states currently have an operational program. In the vast majority of these programs, prescribers and pharmacists (herein referred to collectively as providers) can register to become an authorized user of the PDMP. Following authorization, users can then conduct online queries to obtain prescription histories for their patients, a process that may take up to several minutes. For many providers, accessing patient prescription histories offers critical input that can inform their clinical decision-making. This process has shown promise in preventing prescribing to patients who appear to be VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:33 Jul 18, 2013 Jkt 229001 abusing prescription medications or obtaining controlled substances prescribed by multiple providers without knowledge of the other prescriptions (referred as doctor shopping) while enabling appropriate prescribing and dispensing for legitimate patients, especially for pain medication. However, for many providers, even the few minutes required to log on to the PDMP and query a patient’s prescription history present a barrier to regular use. Moreover, gaps in patients’ prescription histories due to limited interstate sharing of PDMP data has contributed to relatively slow rates of provider registration with and use of PDMPs. PDMP reports show that it often takes four or more years following the implementation of online PDMP access for registration in the state to reach 50% of the prescribers who write controlled substance prescriptions, thus limiting the potential impact of these programs. Various strategies have been proposed to increase provider use of PDMPs. For example, several states have recently passed legislation mandating provider registration with and use of the PDMP under certain circumstances. Many states have also initiated efforts to enroll providers in educational training programs on the value of using PDMP data to counteract the prescription drug overdose epidemic. The project described below takes a different approach to increasing provider use of PDMPs. In an effort to increase provider utilization of PDMPs and to effectively reduce prescription drug abuse and overdose, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) funded projects in nine states beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2012 and lasting for a period of two years through its PDMP Electronic Health Records (EHRs) Integration and Interoperability Expansion (PEHRIIE) cooperative agreement program. The goals of this program are to: (1) Increase provider utilization of their state’s PDMP by improving realtime access to PDMPs via the integration of PDMP data and/or access thereof within health information technologies (HIT) such as health information exchanges (HIEs), EHR systems, and/or pharmacy dispensing software (PDS). Ultimately, when providers access a patient’s EHR, s/he will have automatic access to that patient’s up-to-date prescription history within the course of their normal clinical workflow, thereby obviating the time and effort otherwise needed to access the PDMP and obtain this information separately from the patient’s medical record. Similarly, PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 43207 when a pharmacist calls up patient information via the PDS, the patient’s prescription history from the PDMP will be automatically compiled, allowing for expedited access and review prior to dispensing. (2) Increase provider utilization of PDMP data by increasing the comprehensiveness and quality of PDMP data by increasing the interoperability of PDMPs across state lines. When providers access a patient’s prescription history from his or her state PDMP (either directly or via the systems described above), data from other state PDMPs with which the home state PDMP is interoperable will be automatically included. By providing a more complete prescription history, PDMP data is expected to have greater utility in clinical decision-making, thus offering an inducement for providers to access and utilize PDMP data more frequently. Both of these goals are expected to contribute to improving prescribing and dispensing practices, resulting in decreased prescription drug abuse and misuse and related health consequences such as fatal and non-fatal overdoses as well as lead to improvements in care. Under the cooperative agreements issued by SAMHSA, the CDC is responsible for conducting a comprehensive process and outcomes evaluation of the PEHRIIE program. The evaluation team consists of health scientists on the Prescription Drug Overdose team within the Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Control and Prevention at CDC, and two subject matter experts at the PDMP Center of Excellence at Brandeis University. The primary goals of the qualitative evaluation component of this work are: (1) To understand the processes, challenges, and successes in implementing and sustaining integration of PDMP data with Health Information Technology (HIT) systems and interoperability of PDMP systems across states; and (2) To understand the experiences of clinical end users with the systems being upgraded under the PEHRIIE program and to capture their recommendations, if any, for how the goals of the PEHRIIE could have been better accomplished. To achieve these evaluation goals, the CDC evaluation team will conduct qualitative interviews with those individuals involved in the planning and implementation of the PEHRIIE projects (i.e., key project staff and stakeholders) as well as with the clinical end users (i.e., prescribers and E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1 43208 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Notices pharmacists) of the PDMPs in the states where these projects are taking place. This evaluation is consistent with CDC’s strategic goals of improving surveillance, informing policy, and improving clinical practice. CDC believes that the most effective interventions in combating the prescription drug overdose epidemic include those designed to identify and address high-risk patients at a stage when their risky behaviors can be most effectively addressed. Strong yet accessible PDMPs that promote proactive patient interventions are a critical component of this high-risk focused strategy. By enabling providers to identify high-risk patients at the point of care, via improved access to and use of PDMPs and improved comprehensiveness of PDMP data, providers can intervene with patients and address their high-risk behaviors, including providing or redirecting patients to substance abuse treatment as necessary. Through this evaluation, CDC will better understand the impact of PDMP integration and interoperability in the funded states. The total annual estimated burden hours for the planned qualitative information collection are 235 hours. Total burden time includes the time to will be conducted at 39 implementation sites distributed across all nine PEHRIIE states (range: 3–8 sites per state). Interviews will be conducted with three clinical end users per implementation site for a total of 117 clinical end user interviews. Based on pilot testing with three individuals, each clinical end user interview will take one hour to complete. Therefore, 117 clinical end users at 1 hour each will require 117 hours of interviewee time. It will take 39 hours of recruiter time to identify potential clinical end user interviewees, to collect the contact information from these clinical end users, and to disseminate this collected information to the CDC evaluation time. The CDC will work with one recruiter per implementation site to complete these tasks. Based on the time required to complete similar tasks during the planning of the clinical end user pilot interviews, each recruiter is expected to spend approximately one hour on these tasks. Therefore, 39 recruiters spending one hour each on this information collection will require 39 hours of recruiter time. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. conduct interviews with key project staff/stakeholders and clinical end users, and the time spent by recruiters at the PEHRIIE implementation sites to identify potential clinical end user interviewees. It will take 79 hours of interviewee time to complete all of the key project staff/stakeholder interviews necessary for the planned evaluation of the PEHRIIE program. Interviews will be conducted with 91 key project staff members/stakeholders across the nine PEHRIIE-funded states (range: 6–16 interviews per state) as well as 14 key project staff/stakeholders representing five companies working with multiples states involved in the PEHRIIE program, for a total of 105 key project staff/ stakeholders interviewees. Based on pilot testing with three individuals, each key project staff/stakeholder interview will take approximately 45 minutes to complete. Therefore, 105 key project staff/stakeholder interviews at 45 minutes each will require 79 hours of interviewee time. It will take 117 hours of interviewee time to complete all of the clinical end user interviews necessary for the planned evaluation of the PEHRIIE program. Each interviewee will be interviewed once. End user interviews ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS Average burden per response (in hrs) Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent 105 1 45/60 79 Clinical End Users ............................ Clinical End User Recruiters ............. Key Project Staff/Stakeholders Interview Guide. Clinical End Users Interview Guide N/A ................................................... 117 39 1 1 1 1 117 39 Total ........................................... ........................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 235 Type of respondents Form name Key Project Staff/Stakeholders ......... Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. 2013–17295 Filed 7–18–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163–18–P emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects Title: Income Withholding Order/ Notice for Support (IWO). VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:33 Jul 18, 2013 Jkt 229001 OMB No.: 0970–0154. Description: Statutory requirements under subsections 466(a)(1), (a)(8) and 466(b)(6) of the Social Security Act require the use of the Income Withholding for Support (IWO) form in all child support cases. The form must be used by child support agencies, courts, tribes, private attorneys and other entities when ordering or sending notices to withhold. 42 U.S.C 666(a)(1) and (8); 42 U.S.C 666(b)(6). The Income Withholding for Support (IWO) form previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget has been modified to address items identified by states and employers/ income withholders. The title of the form is changed to Income Withholding Order/Notice for Support (IWO) to correspond to the first line of the form. PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Total burden (in hrs) The blank box for court use is removed and text shifted to make better use of available space. Language is inserted to explain that provisions of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) apply only to employees and not to independent contractors. A header with caseidentifying information is added on Page Two and a Social Security Number on Page Three to place case-identifying information on each page and allow future automated improvements for employers and states. Clarifications are added to the Instructions emphasizing that each IWO should represent the information for only one case, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. Respondents: Not applicable. E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM 19JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43206-43208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17295]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[60Day-13-13ZZ]


Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and 
Recommendations

    In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on 
proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. 
To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a 
copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 
and send comments to LeRoy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, 
Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to omb@cdc.gov.
    Comments are invited 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) ways to enhance 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. Written comments should be received 
within 60 days of this notice.

Proposed Project

    Evaluation of the SAMHSA PDMP Electronic Health Record (EHR) 
Integration and Interoperability Expansion Program--New--National 
Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Center for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).

[[Page 43207]]

Background and Brief Description

    In 2009, drug overdose deaths became the leading cause of injury 
death in the United States (U.S.), exceeding motor vehicle traffic 
crash deaths for the first time, a trend that continued in 2010. 
Prescription drugs, particularly opioid pain relievers, have been 
identified as the main driver of this increase. The number of overdose 
deaths per year involving opioid pain relievers increased more than 
four-fold from 1999 to 2010 (from 4,030 to 16,651), outnumbering 
overdose deaths involving all illicit drugs combined. Morbidity 
associated with opioid pain reliever abuse increased in parallel. The 
rate of emergency department visits associated with the misuse or abuse 
use of opioid pain relievers increased 153% from 2004 to 2011, while 
rates for illicit drugs remained largely stable.
    Concurrent to this rise in overdose death rates, the sales of 
opioid pain relievers have increased four-fold since 1999. According to 
the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, the primary source of 
prescription drugs for non-medical use is from prescribed and dispensed 
prescriptions; more than 70% of those who reported non-medical use of 
pain relievers said they obtained the pain reliever they most recently 
used from a friend or relative. Moreover, multiple studies have found 
an association between increased opioid prescribing--in the amount 
prescribed per prescription, the total days' supply, and the number of 
prescriptions per patient--and increased morbidity and mortality in the 
U.S. over the last 10 to 15 years.
    Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are now recognized as 
a key tool in federal, state, and local efforts to address prescription 
drug abuse and misuse. PDMPs are state databases to which pharmacies 
and other dispensers report dispensed outpatient controlled substance 
prescription information. Forty-nine states have passed legislation 
authorizing a PDMP, and 45 states currently have an operational 
program. In the vast majority of these programs, prescribers and 
pharmacists (herein referred to collectively as providers) can register 
to become an authorized user of the PDMP. Following authorization, 
users can then conduct online queries to obtain prescription histories 
for their patients, a process that may take up to several minutes. For 
many providers, accessing patient prescription histories offers 
critical input that can inform their clinical decision-making. This 
process has shown promise in preventing prescribing to patients who 
appear to be abusing prescription medications or obtaining controlled 
substances prescribed by multiple providers without knowledge of the 
other prescriptions (referred as doctor shopping) while enabling 
appropriate prescribing and dispensing for legitimate patients, 
especially for pain medication.
    However, for many providers, even the few minutes required to log 
on to the PDMP and query a patient's prescription history present a 
barrier to regular use. Moreover, gaps in patients' prescription 
histories due to limited interstate sharing of PDMP data has 
contributed to relatively slow rates of provider registration with and 
use of PDMPs. PDMP reports show that it often takes four or more years 
following the implementation of online PDMP access for registration in 
the state to reach 50% of the prescribers who write controlled 
substance prescriptions, thus limiting the potential impact of these 
programs. Various strategies have been proposed to increase provider 
use of PDMPs. For example, several states have recently passed 
legislation mandating provider registration with and use of the PDMP 
under certain circumstances. Many states have also initiated efforts to 
enroll providers in educational training programs on the value of using 
PDMP data to counteract the prescription drug overdose epidemic. The 
project described below takes a different approach to increasing 
provider use of PDMPs.
    In an effort to increase provider utilization of PDMPs and to 
effectively reduce prescription drug abuse and overdose, the Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) funded 
projects in nine states beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2012 and lasting 
for a period of two years through its PDMP Electronic Health Records 
(EHRs) Integration and Interoperability Expansion (PEHRIIE) cooperative 
agreement program. The goals of this program are to:
    (1) Increase provider utilization of their state's PDMP by 
improving real-time access to PDMPs via the integration of PDMP data 
and/or access thereof within health information technologies (HIT) such 
as health information exchanges (HIEs), EHR systems, and/or pharmacy 
dispensing software (PDS). Ultimately, when providers access a 
patient's EHR, s/he will have automatic access to that patient's up-to-
date prescription history within the course of their normal clinical 
workflow, thereby obviating the time and effort otherwise needed to 
access the PDMP and obtain this information separately from the 
patient's medical record. Similarly, when a pharmacist calls up patient 
information via the PDS, the patient's prescription history from the 
PDMP will be automatically compiled, allowing for expedited access and 
review prior to dispensing.
    (2) Increase provider utilization of PDMP data by increasing the 
comprehensiveness and quality of PDMP data by increasing the 
interoperability of PDMPs across state lines. When providers access a 
patient's prescription history from his or her state PDMP (either 
directly or via the systems described above), data from other state 
PDMPs with which the home state PDMP is interoperable will be 
automatically included. By providing a more complete prescription 
history, PDMP data is expected to have greater utility in clinical 
decision-making, thus offering an inducement for providers to access 
and utilize PDMP data more frequently.
    Both of these goals are expected to contribute to improving 
prescribing and dispensing practices, resulting in decreased 
prescription drug abuse and misuse and related health consequences such 
as fatal and non-fatal overdoses as well as lead to improvements in 
care.
    Under the cooperative agreements issued by SAMHSA, the CDC is 
responsible for conducting a comprehensive process and outcomes 
evaluation of the PEHRIIE program. The evaluation team consists of 
health scientists on the Prescription Drug Overdose team within the 
Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury 
Control and Prevention at CDC, and two subject matter experts at the 
PDMP Center of Excellence at Brandeis University. The primary goals of 
the qualitative evaluation component of this work are:
    (1) To understand the processes, challenges, and successes in 
implementing and sustaining integration of PDMP data with Health 
Information Technology (HIT) systems and interoperability of PDMP 
systems across states; and
    (2) To understand the experiences of clinical end users with the 
systems being upgraded under the PEHRIIE program and to capture their 
recommendations, if any, for how the goals of the PEHRIIE could have 
been better accomplished.
    To achieve these evaluation goals, the CDC evaluation team will 
conduct qualitative interviews with those individuals involved in the 
planning and implementation of the PEHRIIE projects (i.e., key project 
staff and stakeholders) as well as with the clinical end users (i.e., 
prescribers and

[[Page 43208]]

pharmacists) of the PDMPs in the states where these projects are taking 
place.
    This evaluation is consistent with CDC's strategic goals of 
improving surveillance, informing policy, and improving clinical 
practice. CDC believes that the most effective interventions in 
combating the prescription drug overdose epidemic include those 
designed to identify and address high-risk patients at a stage when 
their risky behaviors can be most effectively addressed. Strong yet 
accessible PDMPs that promote proactive patient interventions are a 
critical component of this high-risk focused strategy. By enabling 
providers to identify high-risk patients at the point of care, via 
improved access to and use of PDMPs and improved comprehensiveness of 
PDMP data, providers can intervene with patients and address their 
high-risk behaviors, including providing or redirecting patients to 
substance abuse treatment as necessary. Through this evaluation, CDC 
will better understand the impact of PDMP integration and 
interoperability in the funded states.
    The total annual estimated burden hours for the planned qualitative 
information collection are 235 hours. Total burden time includes the 
time to conduct interviews with key project staff/stakeholders and 
clinical end users, and the time spent by recruiters at the PEHRIIE 
implementation sites to identify potential clinical end user 
interviewees.
    It will take 79 hours of interviewee time to complete all of the 
key project staff/stakeholder interviews necessary for the planned 
evaluation of the PEHRIIE program. Interviews will be conducted with 91 
key project staff members/stakeholders across the nine PEHRIIE-funded 
states (range: 6-16 interviews per state) as well as 14 key project 
staff/stakeholders representing five companies working with multiples 
states involved in the PEHRIIE program, for a total of 105 key project 
staff/stakeholders interviewees. Based on pilot testing with three 
individuals, each key project staff/stakeholder interview will take 
approximately 45 minutes to complete. Therefore, 105 key project staff/
stakeholder interviews at 45 minutes each will require 79 hours of 
interviewee time.
    It will take 117 hours of interviewee time to complete all of the 
clinical end user interviews necessary for the planned evaluation of 
the PEHRIIE program. Each interviewee will be interviewed once. End 
user interviews will be conducted at 39 implementation sites 
distributed across all nine PEHRIIE states (range: 3-8 sites per 
state). Interviews will be conducted with three clinical end users per 
implementation site for a total of 117 clinical end user interviews. 
Based on pilot testing with three individuals, each clinical end user 
interview will take one hour to complete. Therefore, 117 clinical end 
users at 1 hour each will require 117 hours of interviewee time.
    It will take 39 hours of recruiter time to identify potential 
clinical end user interviewees, to collect the contact information from 
these clinical end users, and to disseminate this collected information 
to the CDC evaluation time. The CDC will work with one recruiter per 
implementation site to complete these tasks. Based on the time required 
to complete similar tasks during the planning of the clinical end user 
pilot interviews, each recruiter is expected to spend approximately one 
hour on these tasks. Therefore, 39 recruiters spending one hour each on 
this information collection will require 39 hours of recruiter time.
    There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

                                        Estimated Annualized Burden Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of    Average burden
      Type of respondents           Form name        Number of     responses per   per response    Total burden
                                                    respondents     respondent       (in hrs)        (in hrs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Project Staff/Stakeholders  Key Project                  105               1           45/60              79
                                 Staff/
                                 Stakeholders
                                 Interview Guide.
Clinical End Users............  Clinical End                 117               1               1             117
                                 Users Interview
                                 Guide.
Clinical End User Recruiters..  N/A.............              39               1               1              39
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  ................  ..............  ..............  ..............             235
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Leroy A. Richardson,
Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific 
Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the 
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2013-17295 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.