Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to collect information from people to help make healthcare better but needs to ask for the public’s thoughts first. They're asking everyone to share their ideas on whether collecting the info is helpful and how to make it easier.
Summary AI
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is seeking public comments on its plan to collect information from the public. This is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which requires federal agencies to announce new or extended data collections for public feedback. The call for comments focuses on the necessity and usefulness of the information, the accuracy of burden estimates, and ways to improve data collection efficiency. Comments must be submitted by March 17, 2025, either online or by mail to the addresses provided by CMS.
Abstract
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced a call for public comments regarding its plan to gather information from the public as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This Act mandates federal agencies to disclose new or extended data collection initiatives for public review. Such consultations are essential as they provide opportunities for stakeholders to share feedback on the necessity and utility of information being gathered, and on the accuracy of estimated burdens related to this data collection.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A notable issue is the vastly disproportionate estimate of annual hours in the collection titled "Notice of Rescission of Coverage and Disclosure Requirements for Patient Protection under the Affordable Care Act." With over 13 million annual responses expected, only ten annual hours have been allocated, which appears remarkably insufficient, suggesting a possible error in workload estimation or a misunderstanding.
Furthermore, the document contains many technical and legal references, such as the Public Health Service Act and the Affordable Care Act, potentially complicating comprehension for the general public. Adding to this complexity, the document lacks a detailed breakdown of the calculated burden hours for these collections. Greater transparency in these calculations would aid public stakeholders in providing informed feedback.
Broad Public Impact
The CMS's proposal for information collection is part of ensuring that health services function effectively while adhering to legislative requirements. While these processes are fundamental for operational transparency and accountability, their complexity and the jargon used might alienate the average citizen, making it challenging to participate meaningfully in the feedback process.
Specific Stakeholder Impact
For state, local, and tribal governments, the CMS document, particularly the "Blueprint for Approval of State-based Exchange," imposes significant operational and financial responsibilities. Governments need to demonstrate compliance and operational readiness to launch state-based exchanges. Ambient concerns include how these responsibilities might influence resource allocation and bureaucratic workload at the local government level.
On a positive note, these public participation regulations offer a platform for interested parties, including private sector organizations and government entities, to influence policy-making. Transparency in legislative processes fosters trust and can enhance compliance and operational efficiency in the long run.
Conclusion
The CMS's commitment to public engagement is commendable in promoting transparency and establishing public trust. However, challenges persist — notably, the complexity of language and an apparent underestimation in workload demands. Addressing these concerns is crucial for facilitating broad and meaningful public engagement, ensuring that feedback contributes effectively to the development and refinement of health policy and announcements.
Issues
• The information concerning the total annual hours for the 'Notice of Rescission of Coverage and Disclosure Requirements for Patient Protection under the Affordable Care Act' collection seems extremely low (10 hours) considering the number of annual responses (13,741,303). This could indicate an error or misunderstanding in estimating the workload.
• The complexity and specificity of legal references and acts (e.g., Public Health Service Act, Affordable Care Act, No Surprises Act) may make it difficult for the general public to fully understand the implications without additional context or explanation.
• The document does not provide a detailed breakdown of how the estimated burden hours (for both collections) were calculated, which could be crucial for transparency and for public stakeholders to provide informed comments.
• The use of technical and legal jargon without layman's explanations could limit the ability of the average stakeholder to make informed comments or understand the implications of the proposed collections.
• The potential impact and implications of the 'Blueprint for Approval of State-based Exchange' on local governments and the private sector could be further clarified, specifically regarding the operational and financial responsibilities that may arise from the requirements.