Comparative Effectiveness: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Process for Awarding Recovery Act Funds and Disseminating Results

United States. Government Accountability Office.

United States. Government Accountability Office.

关键词: Government accountability -- United States.;    health care;    government operations;    comparative effectiveness;    letter report;   

RP-ID  :  GAO-12-332
RP-ID  :  588935

美国|英语

来源: UNT Digital Library

【 摘 要 】

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "AHRQ used its standard, competitive review processes and criteria to select the recipients of CER grants and contracts using Recovery Act funds. Specifically, to select the recipients of Recovery Act CER grants, AHRQ used its standard review process that includes peer review of grant applications, the development of funding recommendations by a team of senior officials within AHRQ, and final funding determination by the agency’s director. As part of this process, AHRQ used its standard criteria to evaluate grant applications, as well as additional requirements that were specific to each funding opportunity. To select contractors who would receive Recovery Act funds, AHRQ used its standard contracting processes and criteria that are governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which establishes uniform policies for acquisition of supplies and services by executive agencies, and the Public Health Service Act. These processes included an evaluation of all contract proposals using standard criteria adapted to the specific needs of each project. Between February 2009 and September 2010, AHRQ awarded $311 million of its $474 million in Recovery Act CER funds through 110 grants. AHRQ also awarded $161 million of its Recovery Act CER funding through 34 contracts. The contracts and grants AHRQ awarded supported both AHRQ’s agency-specific and HHS’s departmentwide CER priority areas. In an effort to avoid unnecessary duplication of CER awards, AHRQ participated in HHS working groups, developed a CER spending plan, and queried HHS databases to check for duplicative awards."