|
Post by NCFC on Dec 12, 2012 16:50:54 GMT -7
[Question posed by Harvey Licht]
Multiple other frontier designations have been used by federal agencies in the past, including the designation implemented by the BPHC, and the system used by OAT. In addition, newer designations have been established in statute as part of PPACA, including a new frontier HPSA designation and a frontier designation established for counties under the Frontier Community Health Integration Demonstration Program. The proposed designation could proliferate competing alternative definitions of frontier used by different federal agencies.
What did you see as inadequate in previous definitions of frontier that led to the development of this approach, and how does the proposed approach address those deficiencies?
|
|
|
Post by NCFC on Dec 13, 2012 15:25:57 GMT -7
[Steve Hirsch] ORHP was interested in a sub-county, quantitatively based definition that would allow a better targeting of resources. We have not committed to using FAR, and there are no programmatic uses for it planned yet, but we did want to help develop such a definition.
|
|
|
Post by NCFC on Dec 13, 2012 15:27:39 GMT -7
[John Cromartie] The USDA, ERS in particular, was interested in participating in this project because the demographic trends that we have been tracking for several years now have pointed to increasing challenges related to poverty and population retention in remote areas, but also a lot of diversity in frontier areas. We were interested in a more accurate definition which would identify remote areas in a way that improves over county-level definitions, especially because counties are so big out west. From and economic development point of view, we had a lot of issues that were pointing to increasing challenges in remote areas, and that’s something we wanted to focus on in our research.
|
|