Post by NCFC on Dec 13, 2012 14:28:03 GMT -7
[Question posed by Harvey Licht]
The four FAR levels present multiple ways of looking at distance to different size population centers. Previous frontier definitions have only looked at distance to the largest population centers and to actual locations of key services typically located in these larger centers, such as hospital-based specialty services. It is difficult to make assumptions about the availability of health services in smaller population centers in FAR levels 2-4. For federal program decision-making these levels of analysis may not be as useful as the FAR level 1 designation.
Would you recommend to ORHP and other federal programs that the FAR level 1 definition be the primary frontier designation to be used for program purposes? If not, where do you think that the other levels might be useful determining eligibility or priority for program investments?
The four FAR levels present multiple ways of looking at distance to different size population centers. Previous frontier definitions have only looked at distance to the largest population centers and to actual locations of key services typically located in these larger centers, such as hospital-based specialty services. It is difficult to make assumptions about the availability of health services in smaller population centers in FAR levels 2-4. For federal program decision-making these levels of analysis may not be as useful as the FAR level 1 designation.
Would you recommend to ORHP and other federal programs that the FAR level 1 definition be the primary frontier designation to be used for program purposes? If not, where do you think that the other levels might be useful determining eligibility or priority for program investments?