SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Federal Advisory Committee Act”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Should consensus be 'the commission method' in the US? The perspective of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, regulations, and case law.

This paper examines the drive for consensus from the perspective of the good government framework for federal advisory commissions in the United States. Specifically, the paper examines the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)--the statute, its regulations, and case law. It shows that the FACA was intended to be an antidote to abuses in consensus-making processes, including the failure to fully include competing views on commissions. The index of suspicion in the FACA scheme rises when a group work product--including a consensus report--is to be the basis of recommendations to federal officials. Once FACA's requirements regarding committee composition are satisfied, the index of suspicion drops and FACA is indifferent to consensus-making; but the conditions for informed, meaningful participation apply to members who dissent from, as well as those who participate in, consensus. In negotiated rulemaking, the push for consensus and closure creates unacceptable tension with the good government goals of openness and accountability. Proponents of consensus-only bioethics commissions can learn from FACA-related legislative, agency, and judicial insights that consensus-seeking is not always desired by government officials; is rarely cost free; and that diversity and dissent enhance openness, accountability, and fairness. The burden of proof is therefore on proponents of a consensus-only standard for bioethics commissions to demonstrate that a drive for consensus furthers sound decision-making by government officials more than it sets back openness and accountability to a diverse public.

Advisory Committees↗

PubMed2006

Work activity of persons working as members of advisory committees established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Final rule.

We are revising our disability regulations under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act to establish a new, special rule that affects individuals who are receiving payments or providing services as members or consultants of a committee, board, commission, council or similar group established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Under this special rule, we will not count any earnings an individual is receiving from serving as a member or consultant of a FACA advisory committee when we determine if the individual is engaging in substantial gainful activity under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act). In addition, we will not evaluate any of the services the individual is providing as a member or consultant of the FACA advisory committee when determining if the individual has engaged in substantial gainful activity under titles II and XVI of the Act. Based on our experience with FACA advisory committees and the frequency and level of activity required by these committees, we believe that performance of activity on these committees does not demonstrate the ability to perform substantial gainful activity. We believe this to be consistent with Congress's view, as it has recognized in creating the Ticket to Work advisory committee, for example, that current disability beneficiaries should be considered for membership. This also will encourage individuals with disabilities to serve on FACA advisory committees, thereby providing the benefit of their unique perspective on policies and programs to the Federal Government.

Advisory Committees↗

PubMed1998

Medicare program; coverage and administrative policies for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests; intent to form Negotiated Rulemaking Committee--HCFA. Notice of intent to form Negotiated Rulemaking Committee and notice of meetings.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Secretary to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee's (the Committee) purpose will be to negotiate national coverage and administrative policies for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests under Part B of the Medicare program as required by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). The Committee will consist of representatives of interested parties that are likely to be significantly affected by the proposed rule. The Committee will be assisted by a neutral facilitator. The BBA outlines the scope of issues to be negotiated by the Committee. We specifically request public comment as to whether we have identified the interests that will be affected by key issues listed below.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.↗

PubMed1998

Plans established or maintained pursuant to collective bargaining agreements under section 3(40)(A)--Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration. Notice of intent to form a negotiated rulemaking advisory committee.

The Department of Labor (Department) intends to form a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (Committee) in accordance with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee will negotiate the development of a proposed rule implementing the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461 (ERISA). The purpose of the proposed rule is to establish a process and criteria for a finding by the Secretary of Labor that an agreement is a collective bargaining agreement for purposes of section 3(40) of ERISA. The proposed rule will also provide guidance for determining when an employee benefit plan is established or maintained under or pursuant to such an agreement. Employee benefit plans that are established or maintained for the purpose of providing benefits to the employees of more than one employer are "multiple employer welfare arrangements" under section 3(40) of ERISA, and therefore are subject to certain state regulations, unless they meet one of the exceptions set forth in section 3(40)(A). At issue in this regulation is the exception for plans or arrangements that are established or maintained under one or more agreements which the Secretary finds to be collective bargaining agreements. If adopted, the proposed rule would affect employee welfare benefit plans, their sponsors, participants and beneficiaries, as well as service providers to plans. It may also affect plan fiduciaries, unions, employer organizations, the insurance industry, and state insurance regulators.

Collective Bargaining↗

PubMed1997

Medicare program; solvency standards for provider-sponsored organizations; intent to form negotiated rulemaking committee--HCFA. Intent to form negotiated rulemaking committee and notice of meetings.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Secretary to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Committee's purpose will be to negotiate the solvency standards for provider-sponsored organizations under part C of the Medicare program. The Committee will consist of representatives of interests that are likely to be significantly affected by the solvency rule. The Committee will be assisted by a neutral facilitator. We request public comment on whether--We have identified the key solvency issues to be negotiated by the Committee; We have identified the interests that will be affected by key issues listed below; The party we are proposing to serve as the neutral facilitator is acceptable. Additionally, comments are sought on several key definitions related to the negotiated rulemaking and the forthcoming rulemaking for Medicare+Choice organizations.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.↗

PubMed2002

Medicare program; fee schedule for payment of ambulance services and revisions to the physician certification requirements for coverage of nonemergency ambulance services. Final rule with comment period.

This final rule establishes a fee schedule for the payment of ambulance services under the Medicare program, implementing section 1834(l) of the Social Security Act. As required by that section, the proposed rule on which this final fee schedule for ambulance services is based was the product of a negotiated rulemaking process that was carried out consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990. The fee schedule described in this final rule will replace the current retrospective reasonable cost payment system for providers and the reasonable charge system for suppliers of ambulance services. In addition, this final rule requires that ambulance suppliers accept Medicare assignment; codifies the establishment of new Health Care Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes to be reported on claims for ambulance services; establishes increased payment under the fee schedule for ambulance services furnished in rural areas based on the location of the beneficiary at the time the beneficiary is placed on board the ambulance; and revises the certification requirements for coverage of nonemergency ambulance services.

Ambulances↗

PubMed1996

Disagreement, consensus, and moral integrity.

The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments experienced some disagreements among its members in the course of its work. An epistemological controversy over the nature and degree of evidence required to draw ethical conclusions pervaded the Committee's deliberations. Other disagreements involved the proper role of a governmental advisory committee and the question of when it is appropriate to notify people that they were unknowing subjects of radiation experiments. In the end, the Committee was able to reach consensus on almost all of its findings and recommendations through a process that preserved the integrity of its members.

Advisory Committees↗

PubMed2004

Ethics, regulation, and biomedical research.

Controversy has surrounded the institutions that facilitate discussion and regulation of American biomedical research for years. Recent challenges to the legitimacy of the President's Council on Bioethics have been focused on stem cell research. These arguments represent an opportunity to reconsider the legislation under which stem cell research is regulated, as well as to consider preexisting bodies like the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee and National Bioethics Advisory Commission. This paper proposes a Federal Life Sciences Policy Commission, a novel commission with advisory and regulatory powers that would benefit from the positive and negative lessons learned under the legislation that currently shapes the formation and institutional characteristics of advisory bodies in the United States. The Federal Life Sciences Policy Commission would have institutional independence not present in previous advisory bodies, while maintaining the tradition of broad societal representation and thoughtful discourse that has developed in the United States.

Advisory Committees↗

PubMed1994