Health Care Reform, Joe Caldwell, PhD Manny Jimenez, MD

3. Basic Guidelines for Discussion
• How can we enhance the competition and
review so that it yields the best possible network
of LEND programs?
• Don’t spend time on what we cannot control
• Possible outcomes of this discussion
– Letter of recommendations from AUCD to MCHB?
– AUCD-MCHB meeting to discuss recommendations?
– Both
– Other suggestions?

5. Single Cohort Competition
• How will MCHB manage 40+ reviews?
– That’s their problem, but it increases our
anxiety
– They successfully managed a large review for
the supplement applications

7. Single Cohort Competition
• How can we help MCHB find competent,
unbiased reviewers who understand
LEND?
– A list of suggestions from programs?
– AUCD to compile, edit and forward?
– Other sources?

10. ASD and Related
Neurodevelopmental Disabilities
• Lumping or splitting?
• Where should the emphasis be? Balance?
• What are the boundaries of “related NDD”?
• Is this a minigrant (ASD) within a larger grant?
• Is this a consolidated, seamless proposal?
• How should current activities be best reported?
• Does LEND ASD training require 300++ hours?

12. Insight Policy Research, Inc.
• Does Insight’s review have any relevance
to the new guidance?
• Timing of release of their findings to
MCHB?
• Will/Should Insight information be used to
inform the guidance?
• Will Insight’s review process change data
reporting requirements and program cost?

14. Finances
• Are there enough resources for meaningful
LEND expansion?
• How will additional programs impact individual
programs and the network as a whole?
• How will an expanded network better address
the mission of MCHB and “the MCH
population?”
• Justification for higher program funding?
– More disciplines? More trainees?
– National vs. Regional/Local impact?

15. Other Issues
• Emphasis on Life Course Approach
• Ties to other CAAI programs
• Expectations of ASD-related research
• And . . . .