|
|
Post by NCFC on Dec 13, 2012 13:55:19 GMT -7
Two of the major federal shortage/underservice designations, the HPSA and MUA/P, include mechanisms for State/Tribal/Local requests to designate areas or populations. This mechanism reflects, in part, an understanding that national databases do not fully capture the most accurate information about local areas. Local data and local interpretation can increase the accuracy of any national designation schema.
Do you see a need to supplement the proposed methodology with a mechanism that allows State/Tribal/Local requests for designation of frontier areas?
|
|
|
|
Post by NCFC on Dec 13, 2012 14:11:34 GMT -7
[Answered by Gary Hart]
Depending on the program and its purposes, it may make sense to allow an appeals process for communities that don’t qualify using the FAR methodology. I think that would depend on lots of things, including the federal and state governments’ willingness to spend the money to do that process, which probably wouldn’t be cheap. But in some programs where it’s important enough, it’s an option.
Someone who is implementing a program needs to weigh whether a reconsideration process would be appropriate for that specific program. I think a lot of times it will be, but that's not the methodology, it’s more subject-specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by NCFC on Dec 13, 2012 15:44:52 GMT -7
[John Cromartie]
None of these systems are perfect. They can’t be. They won’t work in some geographic areas as well as they do in others, and it just seems to make sense that you have to have components in any program to deal with the basic fuzziness of all of this.
|
|
