Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention Division of Cancer Prevention and Control 4770 Buford Hwy, NE MS K-64 Atlanta, GA 30341-3717 Call: 1 (800) CDC-INFO TTY: 1 (888) 232-6348 FAX: (770) 488-4760 E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov Submit a Question Online |
|
|
|
Questions and Answers about Funding Opportunity CDC-RFA-DP07-703View Announcement CDC-RFA-DP07-703 National Cancer Prevention and Control Programs
When filling out the application packet on grants.gov, how are applicants to handle the fact that there are two CFDA number connected with these programs? Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.283 for the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program and the National Program for Cancer Registries and 93.919 for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program The fields within the electronic Grant Application Package designated for the CFDA number are not data entry fields - any existing number in said field can not be changed by the applicant. CFDA numbers should not be used in an applicant's search for a grant opportunity (even though grants.gov allows them to), because numerous opportunities are posted under the same CFDA number so their results will be heavily flawed. In conclusion, please let your applicants know that the CFDA number will be matched with the appropriate award by the funding agency. The number contained within the pre-populated fields (i.e., the CFDA field on the front of their Electronic Grant Application Package), should remain as is and will not effect the review of their application in any way. Are there any recommended general file naming conventions for pages submitted via grants.gov? Applicants are encouraged to clearly title all pages with the name of the organization/agency and to identify to which program component the page relates to (NCCCP, NCCCP/Additionals - Colorectal, Ovarian, Prostate, Skin, NBCCEDP, or NPCR). There is only one mandatory submission field for the Project Abstract. How are applicants to handle submitting multiple Project Abstracts? The grants.gov application package is a general package for use by all federal agencies. In order to use the grants.gov application package and submit the required abstract for each of the program components (NCCCP, NBCCEDP, and NPCR), the applicant will use the form "Other Attachments" when uploading the second and third project abstracts. Applicants are encouraged to clearly title each attachment so that the reviewers will be able to readily identify what is attached. Are the Abstracts a part of the page limits? No. A Project Abstract must be submitted with the application forms. Therefore, it is not considered a part of the narrative or appendices. The Project Abstract must contain a summary of the proposed activity suitable for dissemination to the public. It should be a self-contained description of the project and should contain a statement of objectives and methods to be employed. It should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and insofar as possible understandable to a technically literate lay reader. This Abstract must not include any proprietary/confidential information. How many Letters of Intent will we need? A single LOI listing all program components (NCCCP, NCCCP/Additionals - Colorectal, Ovarian, Prostate, Skin, NBCCEDP, and NPCR) for which an agency/organization intends to apply for is acceptable. No. Please refer to section IV.3. Submission Dates and Times Letter of Intent (LOI) Deadline Date: February 15, 2007 CDC requests that an applicant submit an LOI if the applicant intends to submit a full application for this funding opportunity. Although the LOI is not required, not binding, and does not enter into the review of the subsequent application, it will be used to gauge the level of interest in this program and to allow CDC to plan the application review. What should be included in the LOI? IV.2. Content and Form of Submission Letter of Intent (LOI) Your LOI must be written in the following format:
The LOI must contain the following information:
It is not necessary for the LOI to be signed by any officials. This is just a planning tool for CDC. A listing of all program components (NCCCP, NCCCP/Additionals - Colorectal, Ovarian, Prostate, Skin, NBCCEDP, and NPCR) for which an agency/organization intends to apply for is helpful. To whom should the LOIs be submitted? IV.6. Other Submission Requirements LOI Submission Address: CDC, NCCDPHP, DCPC, PSB OR by courier service: Koger Center OR by fax: 770-488-3230 What is the due date for Letters of Intent (LOI)? February 15, 2007 What is the new Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA)Number? It is CDC-RFA-DP07-703 What is the definition of a "Bona Fide Agent"? A Bona Fide Agent is an agency/organization identified by the state as eligible to submit an application under the state eligibility in lieu of a state application. If applying as a bona fide agent of a state government, a letter from the state government as documentation of the status is required. Place this documentation behind the first page of the application form. Do the formatting requirements apply to the narrative and appendices? The formatting requirements are CDC's standards. We do realize that for some documents that the applicant may submit that they do not have control of the formatting of the document. Is there a discrepancy within section IV.4. Intergovernmental Review of Applications? Yes, this will be corrected with an amendment. Section IV.4. Intergovernmental Review of Applications should read: Executive Order 12372 does apply to this program. Must we repeat the six essential elements for contractors? Yes. Because this is a competitive funding process, applicants should submit all required information for consideration during the review process. Must the work plan be in a template or can it be text only? Applicants are encouraged to use the workplan templates provided in the appendices for each of the Program Components (NCCCP, NCCCP/Additionals, NBCCEDP, NPCR). There is a discrepancy in Award Date Notification. Section II lists the anticipated award date notification as June 30, 2007. Section V.3 lists the anticipated award notification as May 2007. Which notification date is correct? These items refer to two different things. In Section V.3., the May 2007 date refers to when programs will be notified whether or not they are approved for funding. The Anticipated Award Notification date of June 2007, is when programs will receive the Notice of Grant Award and actually be funded. National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP)If, after review, the CDC does not feel that the applicant is fully ready to move into implementation but they have a draft CCC plan and have documented the planning process, can they still be considered for implementation funding? No, since this is a competitive announcement, there is no guarantee and no fall back for anyone applying under DP07-703 for any program component. If they apply for Implementation, they are only eligible for Implementation funds. If, prior to submission, there is question about the applicant's readiness for implementation then, would it be better for them to apply for planning this year and then apply for implementation the following year via the interim progress report? Since this is a competitive announcement, we cannot make any action recommendations; only clarify points in the FOANSWER The applicant must determine their eligibility and we can only review them for those funds. In the application process, an abstract is requested. Does this mean that there should be one NCCCP abstract that references the base grant as well as any addition (supplemental funded) activities or should there be one abstract for each, ( base, colorectal, prostate, ovarian and skin)? There should be separate abstracts for each component for which you submit an application. The abstracts for the optional additionally funded projects may be shorter, due to the page limitations. Given their unique situation (4 states applying under 1 national application), are they still held to the same page limit restrictions or is there room for some flexibility? The amended FOA will state that "…For applications from a Bona Fide Agent representing multiple applicants, page maximums shall refer to EACH application." Do the workplans for each state need to be included in the FSM National grant application? Again, taking into consideration that there are 5 CCC plans and the page limit restrictions. Yes, however, the amended FOA will state that "…For applications from a Bona Fide Agent representing multiple applicants, page maximums shall refer to EACH application." For the other elements that are typically reserved for the grant (i.e., detailed management and evaluation plan), would it be helpful or harmful (from the review perspective) to include those items in the body of the State's CCC plan? We cannot answer this question as it constitutes a recommendation. What constitutes a "draft CCC plan?" Does the CCC plan that is submitted with an implementation application need to be the published one ready for distribution or can it be the text version complete with goals/objectives/strategies but not quite ready for printing? We cannot find the words "draft CCC plan" in DP07-703. Section IV.2 (8) says that, "(for Implementation Applicants Only): The applicants for Implementation funding must submit a copy of the most recent State/Tribe/Territory-wide comprehensive cancer control plan. Can you clarify/give example of this (funding restriction): "The direct and primary recipient in a cooperative agreement program must perform a substantial role in carrying out project objectives and not merely serve as a conduit for an award to another party or provider who is ineligible." For the time being, we are using the general definition of "substantial", as being "what appears reasonable and appropriate" given the issue. If necessary, we will develop a more rigorous definition. The NBCCEDP has a waiver for matching fund requirements for the Territories - does this apply to the NCCCP? The NCCCP does not have a match requirement. It has a cost sharing requirement and there is no waiver for that. The DP07-703 states that the narrative portion must be double spaced. Must the work plans also be double spaced? No. The work plans may be single spaced. The RFA states that the proposal should include a one year work, but on the TA call it was stated that the proposal should include a one year work plan and a five year overview work plan. If the later is true, where would we place the five year plan? The 5 year plan can be a paragraph in the narrative, just to tell us what you hope to accomplish over the life of the project. The work plan is specific goals and objectives for year 1. Under NCCCP Implementation: the performance measure paragraph mentions "CDC proposes to assess this activity through separate evaluation processes" .... does this mean that CDC will be doing something or is CDC proposing that we do something separate? It means that it is something that CDC will do. Since it is not a performance measure, programs will not be asked to report on this at this time. Cost-Sharing: may not include treatment services. In this case, is treatment the same as clinical? Yes. Cost sharing may not include payment for treatment services or the donations of treatment services, NCCCP does not allow for any direct services. What about colorectal cancer screening? No screening services would be permitted under NCCCP. If the plan itself doesn't address the "In addition, applicants should:..." - does this info. go into the narrative itself or as an attachment with the plan? In the narrative. (Note: "The narrative should address activities ...and must include the following items in the order listed.") I'm confused about the wording of the IPR and annual report due dates .... is the grant period changing? it says the IPR is due NLT end of March .... and APR due 90 days after the end of the project period. Is this new PGO policy? So do we have more time after the end of the reporting period to prepare our reports - i.e. 90 days rather than the 30–45 days we've had in the past? We actually did find an error in the reporting section, which is being corrected in the upcoming amendment, which will say, "Interim progress report is due on or about January 30 of each year". Please clarify the purpose of Appendix A: Menu of Outcomes for NCCCP programs; as well as Section III: Activities The purpose of Appendix A, two charts of Outcomes for NCCCP Programs, is for information purposes only at this time. It is to help programs begin to meet the Recipient Activity that asks them to "Seek and track policy changes related to priorities." We are working with Programs, evaluators and partners to extend this list of possible outcomes and further develop the kinds of outcomes that might be realized from CCC efforts. This is so that we are all in a better position in the future to document the results of what we are doing. Nothing specific is asked for on this at this time. "At this time CDC will not suggest performance measures to assess this recipient activity but proposes to assess this activity through a separate evaluation process." What does that mean? Will we need to address this in our application? In Budget Year 01? Or only in later years? Nothing is suggested for submission at this time with the application for year one of funding. It is our thought that guidance will be developed during the first year of funding, with feedback from Programs, which will ask that performance measures be "reported" to CDC annually perhaps as part of the final progress report each year. At this time we will not be asking programs to report on the activity titled "Develop and implement a plan that has broad support." It is not a performance measure at this time although we plan to implement a descriptive study of all CCC Plans at the national level to begin to develop how this might be a performance measure for the future. "Applicants are required to provide measures of effectiveness as well as provide feedback to CDC on measures in this Program Announcement." Will we need to address this in our applications this year, or is this for future use or development? We are asking that programs, as part of their evaluation plan (I.4), list measures of effectiveness that they will propose for consideration as part of their evaluation. This will be reported to CDC as part of their application for first year funding on the work plan (IV.(2).4 As the evaluation develops throughout the first year of funding, we do understand, however, that these measures of effectiveness might change; the choice of what should be a measure of effectiveness is the program's. We will ask that, as part of the reporting on the performance measure on evaluation (I.4), measures of effectiveness be reported on in subsequent years of funding to document accomplishments of programs and will also be reported on in subsequent work plans. In Section V.1. Criteria: Our State Plan was published in 2005 and we were approved for implementation for 2006-07. Our published plan includes goals and SMART objectives, but does not include specific strategies and activities. Implementation workgroups are developing these. Will this be counted against us in the application review process? If so, how much? What can we do about that before we submit this application? The evaluation criteria for this is 10 points total so the assumption might be made that one element in the whole criteria would not be a major factor. The application should discuss all aspects of this criteria and explain the approach taken by the program in developing their plan. The plan has been developed previously; we have no role in actually assessing these criteria as the review process is objective. It is up to the program to respond and discuss as they can what they have done to develop a plan. Will you please clarify what is meant by: "manuscripts" to be submitted with progress reports? "All manuscripts published as a result of the work supported in part or whole by the cooperative agreement should be submitted with the progress report." In other words, any papers published in scientific or professional journals resulting from the work supported in part or whole by the cooperative agreement should be submitted with the progress report. I noticed in the FOA that the Cancer Conference was listed as one of the items that we should include in our travel budget for Year 1. Is it mandatory to include it in the application's budget or just an approved travel item that we can include if we want to? The items listed under Travel, "...annual travel budget should include" must be included in the budget. We are to include our "cancer plan" with the application. Ours is a 51-page book. How do we send that electronically? During the conference call, a questioner asked if it could be sent separately by post...this was discouraged. According to grants.gov online FAQ's, they suggest that applicants keep the file size to "less than 4 Gigabytes". Using a file size of 24MB as an example, they could upload 170 copies of their cancer plan before there would be a problem. In other words, this should not be a problem. Is there a place in the narrative where you would like to see an evaluation report of activities from the previous grant period (last five years)? Since this is not specifically requested in the FOA, there is not a specified place for it. Year 01 workplan: We believe that it is to be included within the 5-page additional funding proposal narrative, however please confirm if we are correct and also clarify whether we must use the same workplan chart as in the core proposal or we can use another format, i.e. a narrative text format? The NCCCP program prefers the table format (for standardization), but does not require it. Itemized budget and justification. Does it go as part of the core proposal or in each additional funding proposal? Please place your Itemized budgets and justifications with the proposal to which it applies. If part of the additional funding proposal, it is part of the 5–8 page narrative, using the formatting instructions for the Itemized budget and justification in the core application. The instructions for the additional application budget refer us to Section 5 of the NCCCP guidance (approx. p 42). That guidance requires budgeting for program director and/or program coordinator to attend several different annual NCCCP related meetings. Does the additional application budget also have to include these trips for their program director and/or coordinator? No. Job descriptions and CVs : We believe that during the call on January 31st, we were instructed to provide separate job descriptions for key personnel and use brief narratives in the budget justification for other categories of personnel. Do we follow the same guidance as for the core proposal? Yes. Can the Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs use the administrative rate difference from our subcontractors as cost sharing? What you need to do is, verify that amount in the Section 6 of your application, i.e., (6) Sources of Cost Sharing Funds: "Provide a detailed description of the sources of non-Federal cost sharing funds by name and the estimated amounts from each for the forthcoming fiscal year. The applicant should document the procedures for determining the value of non-cash cost sharing funds. Describe the procedures for documenting the actual cost sharing received." Should we included Direct Assistance Funds for Regional public health advisors in our budgets? The new FOA does not include any provisions for Direct Assistance funding for Regional public health advisors for CCC. Re: Letters of Support/Commitment, the announcement states, "Applicants must include a signed letter of support from the chair(s) of the State/Tribe/Territory comprehensive cancer control partnership." Our Coalition does not have a chair. Are we required to have one? In this case, what you could do is present a letter of support from someone in upper management of the AAIHB, who could speak for the support of the coalition, until such time as a Chair is selected. Since this application will be objectively reviewed, you might want to address this issue in the narrative portion of the application. Re: Sources of Cost Sharing Funds, the announcement states to "Provide a detailed description of the sources of non-Federal cost sharing funds by name and the estimated amounts from each for the forthcoming fiscal year." Therefore, are we allowed to describe funds that we are expecting/planning to get, but do not currently have secured for certain? For example, we are planning to apply for a grant through a private foundation to implement a project in our cancer plan–could that be an estimated source of cost-sharing funds? Yes, you may include some items about which you are reasonably certain that funding will become available. How many letters of support are sufficient? According to (Section IV.2 (7), you are required to submit a letter of support from the chair(s) of the S/T/T comprehensive cancer control partnership. As for the others, you may submit what you consider to be appropriate, perhaps 3 or 4 letters, using the guidelines from the FOA, as to content and detail within, that you think will allow objective reviewers to make an informed decision on the quality of your application. Is there a form for the section "Sources of Cost Sharing Funds" and is it part of the narrative or appendices? No. We would just like a "detailed description of the sources of non-Federal cost sharing funds by name and the estimated amounts from each for the forthcoming year." We would also like documentation of how you determined the value of non-cash sharing funds, and describe the procedures for documenting the actual cost sharing received. Is the CCC Cancer Plan included in the appendix? No, the CCC plan is not considered apart of the appendices. Please elaborate on the page limit for NCCCP Optional Additionals. NCCCP Optional Additionals will have a 8 page limit. The format requirements for the Optional Additionals will be addressed in the Amendment. Regarding the cancer plan found in the appendix, can you send in the plan by mail separately? No. To avoid losing materials, please select only one way of transmitting information-either via email or regular mail. All information must be received together. In regards to NCCCP Appendix A, how will it be used in the application? In the Amendment, NCCCP Appendix A – Menu of Outcomes has been deleted from the Funding Opportunity Announcement. For CCC work plan, do we include activities that are being funded by other sources? Yes, as part of the required cost sharing. If a state takes on cost sharing duties, will it create a stronger application? No, because cost sharing does not fall within specific evaluation criterion. National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP)Explain further the Identified Population. Please refer to section I. Funding Opportunity Description, Purpose, National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) Which states: identified populations (are) defined as: uninsured or under-insured, geographically or culturally isolated, older, medically under-served, racial, ethnic, and/or cultural minorities including American Indians, Alaska Natives, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Pacific Islanders, lesbians, and women with disabilities. Also, see section IV.2. Content and Form of Submission The narrative should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period and must include the following items in the order listed: National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) (4) Identification of Eligible and Priority Populations (Up to 2 pages) (a) Discuss the CDC-provided eligibility population estimates (see NBCCEDP Appendix C - NBCCEDP Eligible Population) and reconcile any significant differences with local estimates. The applicant must provide an income eligibility standard that is relative to the Federal Poverty Level and does not exceed 250% of the Federal Poverty Level. Tribes and territories are encouraged to provide their own eligible population estimates, if possible. States are encouraged to develop collaborative partnerships with American Indians/Alaska Natives (other than those funded under this program announcement) to increase access to larger eligible populations. Tribes are encouraged to collaborate with other tribes in geographic or cultural proximity in order to maximize the number of women potentially eligible for services under this program announcement. (b) Discuss the identified priority population(s) for screening. Include supporting data and/or justification for their selection. Provide an estimate of the identified priority population size and describe the specific barriers to screening services that impede women in the identified priority population(s) from participating in breast and cervical cancer screening and follow-up services. (c) Address the priority for breast cancer screening services to be provided to women 50 to 64 years of age. Address the priority for cervical cancer screening services to be provided to program eligible women who are rarely or never screened. What are the program components for the NBCCEDP? Please refer to the NBCCEDP Policies, Procedures and Component Overviews for a description of each of the program components. The overview document provides an overview of each NBCCEDP program component, i.e., Program Management, Data Management, Evaluation, Recruitment, Screening and Diagnostic Services, Partnerships, Professional Development, and Quality Assurance and Improvement. The overviews define the purpose(s) and function of each component; describe essential elements and the competencies needed to implement each component, and provide important references and resources. Will the Clinical Costs Worksheet (CCW) submission suffice for listing and reporting the reimbursement schedule showing CPT codes? No. Applicants need to submit a listing of approved procedures (CPT codes) and program reimbursement rates in addition to the Clinical Cost Worksheet. Please see section "III.3. Other" National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) Special Requirements (j) Funds will be used in a cost-effective manner. Applicants must provide the CPT codes and schedule of fees for breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services to be used by the program. Applicants should see NBCCEDP Appendix A for the 2007 NBCCEDP Allowable Procedures and Relevant CPT Codes. Is NBCCEDP Appendix B – Public Law Requirements, a new document? Yes. This is a new appendix however it is not a new requirement. The Principal Investigator should sign this document. Is The Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act Form no longer required? Correct. Submission of this form is not a requirement for CDC-RFA-DP07-703. Is a letter from Medicaid required? No. Submission of a Medicaid letter is not a requirement for CDC-RFA-DP07-703. Is it acceptable to move the columns around in the workplan as opposed to keeping them exactly the way they have in the template? Yes. The work plan template provided (NBCCEDP Appendix D) serves as a guide for presenting "specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-phased goals, objective and activities . . ." Applicants should include and organize work plan information and data however they see fit to address the essential elements for each program component. The cooperative agreement is for five years but the budget and workplans are for one year. Please further explain this. This is a five year cooperative agreement but please refer to section IV. Application and Submission Information, which addresses the content of the narrative: Where can I get the most recent comprehensive description of the current NBCCEDP program components? The NBCCEDP program components and their essential elements can be found in The NBCCEDP Policies, Procedures and Component Overviews. The NBCCEDP Policies, Procedures and Component Overviews can be accessed through the Internet at NBCCEDP. Is there a page/time period/content limit for the CVs, resumes, job descriptions? Yes. Programs will need to exercise judgment as to what to include in CVs/resumes. Please see the chart under section "IV.2. Content and Form of Submission". Please note the page limit for NBCCEDP appendices. A project narrative must be submitted with the application forms. The narrative must be submitted in the following format: the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) Appendices (NBCCEDP) - 30 pages of appendices, including curriculum vitae, job descriptions, organizational charts, and any other supporting documentation. Do you want job descriptions for all assigned to B&C? Do you want Letters of Commitment grouped in the appendices? For lower-level positions, it is acceptable for the applicant to describe their duties in the budget justification. For higher level positions, applicant may prefer to include resumes and curriculum vitae as appendices. For Letters of Commitment, please refer section IV.2. Content and Form of Submission. IV.2. Content and Form of Submission The narrative should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period and must include the following items in the order listed: National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) (8) Letters of Commitment (Up to 10 pages) It is up to the applicant to determine what information is included in the application in order to meet the page limitations for both the narrative and appendices. Are match pledges/letters of commitment the same? No. These are separate requirements although it is possible that an existing or planned partnership/collaboration could result in match. Please see section "IV.2. Content and Form of Submission", which addresses the content of the narrative. Please see #7 – Source Data for Matching Requirement & #8 – Letters of Commitment under the NBCCEDP portion of this section. How is NCCCP to be incorporated in the grant? In the overall plan or in the workplan? NCCCP should be incorporated into the application wherever it is most appropriate — this would be based on activities proposed and planned accomplishments. Please refer to section IV.2. Content and Form of Submission, Application, the second paragraph under Organizational Support: The narrative should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period and must include the following items in the order listed: National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) (2) Organizational Support (up to 5 pages) The applicant should provide the following information: A plan for program management including an organizational chart, a description of positions that have supervisory or oversight responsibility and how these responsibilities are accomplished. Address leadership and administrative plans, detailing how program components will be executed. Discuss strategies for ensuring appropriate communication among key staff on the status of program implementation, maintenance, and related issues. A plan or description of ways in which the breast and cervical cancer screening program will contribute to and benefit from activities related to comprehensive cancer control planning or implementation, which is supported by the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program. A plan or description of the process to link data elements (e.g., diagnosis, stage, tumor size, date of treatment initiation), related to cancers diagnosed through the program with the comparable information in the cancer registry in order to verify, correct and supplement data. For more information about Cancer Registries see NPCR or SEER. And refer to section V. Application Review Information, V.1. Criteria for the NBCCEDP, (2) under Organizational Support: Organizational Support (15 points) (1) The extent to which the program management plan presented can reasonably be expected to facilitate the achievement of program goals and objectives and the resolution of problems. (2) If the applicant has or is currently applying for comprehensive cancer control planning or implementation funds, the extent to which there is evidence that the breast and cervical cancer screening program contributes to and benefits from those related activities. (3) If the applicant has a Cancer Registry, the existence of a routine data linkage between the NBCCEDP and the cancer registry. Is it a requirement or weighted/evaluated expectation that a state have specific work in their proposal related to Native American /Alaska Native Populations? If applicable, the respondent should include descriptions of past collaborations with tribal organizations and planned collaborations with these and other priority populations. Is one-to-one outreach/recruitment no longer considered a 60% activity? Appendix D of the Policy and Guidance document includes it as such. However the FOA says that outreach and recruitment is a 40% activity. The outreach and recruitment activities that are described as 40% budget activities in the program policies relate to "Public Education" which is also described as a 40% activity in the table in Appendix D. 1:1 recruitment, however, is quite different from "public education" and is considered a 60% budget activity. It is appropriate to consider specific 1:1 recruitment a 60% budget activity. National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR)For the NBCCEDP linkage, are all bulleted items required, or it is just one or more? All activities described in the bullets should be conducted, if applicable. Regarding 2) Use the USCS report for comparison with national and regional data", does this mean that we should include national comparisons in our annual reports or just use our data and compare with national/regional data externally when we are utilizing the data? Many central cancer registries have included a comparison of their population-based cancer incidence data with national data. Now that national and census region data are available through the United States Cancer Statistics report, NPCR encourages funded registries to use USCS as the source of data for the purpose of comparison. Should there be a separate budget for advanced activities? No. Can administrative costs and in-kind contributions still be used as matching funds? For guidelines on cost sharing or matching and information on allowable costs, please see the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45 Public Welfare, 92.24 Matching or Cost Sharing. Does the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) refer to the fiscal year before the central registry was funded by NPCR (Example: 1994)? Yes. If the MOE is now higher than the fiscal year preceding funding by NPCR, can the difference be used as matching funds? Yes, but only the difference. The FOA states that an Assurance Form is provided in the application package, but it is not. Where do we find the form? The FOA will be amended to include an Assurance Form as Appendix G. This document should be signed by the authorizing official and submitted with the application. Should the Overall 5 Year Plan for Enhancement or Planning be in a narrative format or in the template format described in the Work Plan for Year 1? The 5 year plan should be in narrative format. Regarding the fourth bullet, can NPCR funding be used for equipment? Under Funding Restrictions, Bullet #4, does the restriction not use NPCR funds to buy equipment include computers and software to run the registry? Please take into consideration the entire bullet and note that "awardees may not generally use funding for equipment and that "any such proposed spending must be identified in the budget." The definition of equipment for the purposes of the FOA and the reference is as follows: Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45 Public Welfare, 92.3 Definitions Equipment means tangible, nonexpendable, personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. A grantee may use its own definition of equipment provided that such definition would at least include all equipment defined above. If the applicant is approved for funding, NPCR will make a determination of funding for equipment based on the work plan and budget in relation to the NPCR awardee activities and the NPCR program standards. The new NPCR program standards emphasize electronic reporting. Accepting data entered on the web or from scanned forms involves enhancements to database systems. Similarly, accommodating lab reports transmitted in HL7 and handling non-coded lab text through text recognition software implies software development or at least enhancement to database systems. Please explain how we are to move toward the new electronic reporting program standards when we are not allowed to request money to accommodate these types of electronic records. A central cancer registry's accommodation of web-entered data and lab reports submitted in HL7 format does not require independent development of the tools necessary to accept and process these types of data. The funding restrictions placed on new software development and/or enhancement of an existing central registry database management system were implemented, in part, to discontinue funding of redundant development of central cancer registry software and systems utilized by NPCR-funded central registries. NPCR's Registry Plus Development Team works collaboratively with states to develop new or enhanced modules to meet central registry needs. The products of these collaborations are free-of-charge and 100% portable, so that they can be easily implemented and shared among all NPCR-funded central registries. The results of these collaborative development efforts have generated pilot projects and the development of software solutions that take advantage of emerging technologies that will help NPCR-funded registries achieve their electronic reporting goals: Web Plus, an NPCR Registry Plus product, is a Web-based application that can be used by central cancer registries to collect cancer data securely over the World Wide Web. The online abstracting capability of Web Plus is suitable for reporting from physicians' offices and other low-volume reporting sources, while the file upload feature can be used for electronic submission of data from all other reporting sources, as well as for interstate data exchange. Web Plus can be used to upload NAACCR-formatted files, as well as supporting files in any file format. Because data are entered and transmitted over the internet, the need to distribute and maintain software at the facilities or offices using Web Plus is eliminated. In a continual effort to move away from paper-based reporting, new follow-back features are being developed for Web Plus which will enable the upload of partial abstracts from death certificate and pathology lab files, and subsequent notification to physicians via e-mail to log in and update the abstracts. The new features also allow for the tracking of follow-back abstracts to ensure their resolution. Web Plus can be extensively customized for state-specific and user-specific needs, and allows for the set up of user-friendly interfaces for cancer reporting by those not so familiar with the abstraction process, such as physician office staff. Web Plus can greatly increase electronic reporting for a central registry, and is already being used or implemented in 22 state registries. HL7 Mapper Plus, the newest of the Registry Plus applications, is an application that can be used to view and work with HL7 files and messages. HL7 Mapper Plus is being collaboratively developed by participants in the NPCR Modeling Electronic Reporting Project's ePath Pilot Project (described below), and programmed by the Registry Plus Development Team. The program will include functions to import HL7 files manually or directly from PHIN MS queue, test messages for existence of required data items, parse HL7 messages and map HL7 data elements to NAACCR data elements, and search cancer terms to mark a potential report of cancer. HL7 Mapper Plus also builds a pathology lab database, storing various HL7 data elements as discrete field values into tables in MS Access, SQL Server, or Oracle. Further development is underway to enhance the program's text mining capabilities in terms of specificity, as well as providing a user interface for translating the pathology report into ICD-O-3 topography and morphology codes. CDC NPCR-Modeling Electronic Reporting Project (NPCR-MERP) In 2004, NPCR launched the Modeling Electronic Reporting Project (MERP), an endeavor to develop recommendations and guidelines for the electronic transmission of data from a hospital's electronic health records and other data sources (e.g., pathology laboratories) to hospital and state central cancer registries. The transition from manual processes to automated, electronic reporting will result in more complete, timely, and accurate cancer surveillance data. NPCR-MERP is a collaborative effort to position the cancer surveillance community to take advantage of the electronic health record for cancer surveillance. Among the goals of NPCR-MERP is the Health Level 7 (HL7) development of a functional model for an EHR system. Towards this goal, NPCR-MERP has initiated the ePath Pilot Project, described below. ePath Pilot Project As a part of the NPCR-MERP activities, the CDC NPCR-MERP is collaborating with CDC Public Health Information Network (PHIN) staff, NPCR Registry Plus staff, LabCorp representatives, and representatives from 20 central cancer registries on a pilot project to test the implementation of electronic anatomical pathology reporting from a national laboratory to the state central cancer registries. The goal for this project is to 1) implement consistent electronic pathology reporting from a national laboratory to participating state central cancer registries and 2) provide guidance to state cancer registries and pathology laboratories for implementing electronic pathology reporting in their respective environments. Additionally, it will provide the project states with new and improved capabilities for utilizing pathology reports as a source of cancer information, and will pave the way for work with other national labs on implementing ePath reporting to cancer registries. One of the activities of the ePath Pilot Project is to collaboratively develop the software necessary to process the pathology reports once received by central cancer registries. The result of this collaboration is the HL7 Mapper Plus program. The proposed data flow is to transmit HL7 files from LabCorp to the central cancer registries, where the HL7 Mapper Plus program will be used to code ICD-O-3 topography and morphology codes and map existing data items to the NAACCR record layout. Once in the NAACCR record layout, the partially-filled abstracts can be loaded into a follow-back system, such as that offered by Web Plus, for subsequent completion and reporting by the ordering physicians. Both central registries and physicians would benefit from having more timely information – physicians could potentially have access to the pathology information more rapidly than waiting for a paper report to be received via the regular route, which may motivate them to use the system to report to the central registries. For more information about the Registry Plus suite of software applications, NPCR-MERP and ePath Pilot efforts, please visit the Tools section of the NPCR website. Does CDC provide a SAS software server license to awardees free of charge? Yes, CDC offers a SAS software server license for SQL Server and UNIX to awardees free of charge. Regarding 5) Existing sources of funding support, should only sources be included and not amounts or percents? Include percentage of support from each source. Does the letter from the Attorney General…have to be currently dated or can the old letter from the previous funding announcement be used? Who should the letter from the Attorney General be addressed to? The letter must be currently dated and should be addressed to the Principal Investigator. How many days should be included in the budget for the NAACCR and NCRA conferences? The length of the conference (not including pre and post workshops) To provide a cost breakdown and detailed justification regarding maintenance and support of the central registry database management system does NPCR consider "the system" to include all the components from case ascertainment to creation of consolidated tumor file? For example: Webplus, MS SQL, commercial vendor software license, NPCR utilities, editors, etc. or just the registry database management system. Include a cost breakdown and justification for systems developed in-house and systems purchased from a commercial software vendor. NPCR Appendices Questions and AnswersDoes the bottom portion of the Work plan Template, that says "Progress Report" refer to a later report that we will send to CDC or is this something that needs to be completed with the application? The progress report refers to the reporting requirements in Section VI.3. This section would be used to report future progress to NPCR and should not be used for the application. The template shows how a program could use the work plan to report on progress.
Page last reviewed: June 21, 2007
Page last updated: June 21, 2007 Content source: Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
