MS. BEREK: We have a few changes that CMS wants put in. So, we'll just give them to him, and it's fine. I just want to make sure you know that. They are not substantive. They are substantive, but they are not controversial. MS. FRIEDMAN: We would like to substitute the paragraph on CHI to just more fully reflect the entirety of what went on. And we would like to add a couple of sentences on our contingency plan. MS.

MS. KAMINSKY: I have one other thing I wanted to say, which is important along that line. I'm not sure where I had it written, so I'll just have to wing it, which is the following. What has been clearly emerging over the last several months, and I think it was in place when we last spoke, but it's even clearer now is that our orientation toward enforcement is really a voluntary compliance orientation.

DR. LUMPKIN: Been moved and seconded, is there a discussion on the motion to send a letter and the procedure for the adoption of the language of that letter? All those in favor signify by saying aye. MS. ADAIR: It is probably inappropriate for me to say, but appropriate has never kind of stopped, I would thank the NCVHS for their support of our initiatives and the tremendous work that they’re doing to help us move these things forward.

DR. MAYS: Should I start? There should be a letter, you should have a letter, now this is the one that was sent out by email and at the top it should say draft letter to the Secretary recommending special population surveys, John I hope you’re okay, they took the one that I had out of my hand that was your comments.

DR. HUFF: I thought in the last sentence of that paragraph that, I thought in the subcommittee we actually struck first during their proposal stage and then more depth, just strike that whole part so that it just reads we have mutually developed a process that allows NCVHS to discuss in open interactive sessions our recommendations as part of the CHI Council acceptance. Because saying kind of that we did it early and we did it late is just too much detail. MR.

DR. STEINDEL: The way it is right now, which is the NCVHS commends you for your commitment toward government wide adoption of clinical data standards that you first announced on March 21, 2003. DR. LUMPKIN: Is pleased to present to you our comments on the following attached set of CHI domain area recommendations for your consideration. DR.

MR. HUNGATE: I think I need to add into this communication a request for thought on what is the purpose of the report, I sense a lot of uncertainty on that and maybe that will come out of the survey, maybe it will be clearer from the survey, but I’m not certain. MS. GREENBERG: Maybe the workgroup could articulate what you see as the purpose and then have reactions to that.

MR. REYNOLDS: Page 14. If the original date was October 16, 2002, if you are going to say in the next paragraph that the extension was a good thing. So, those two don't work out. DR. COHN: Harry, I don't know how to fix it, but I agree with you it didn't make much sense. I was going to return to the authors and ask them to -- I'm not against the factual content here, but it just don't flow very well. MR. REYNOLDS: We're saying that the extension of 2003, that people couldn't be ready.

MR. HOUSTON: All accounting to public health have to accounted for individually to a patient if they should ask. MR. FANNING: There is sort of streamlined procedure for research disclosures. If you have more than a certain number, it can be done on a kind of batch basis. MR. ROTHSTEIN: Well, this is a proposal that John Houston submitted to the committee, which it did not come from the hearing, and came rather late in the process. That's not to say that it doesn't have merit.

MS. GREENBERG: Well, just that currently we have scheduled for the June meeting, we expect to have a presentation from someone from the director's office of CDC on the Futures initiative. We talked about having a presentation on the IOM report on race and ethnicity, which they think is going to be out in April, so that will be timely. I think Judy offered to organize a presentation from CMS on the Medicare reform legislation.

The DVR considers any changes in pixels, brightness, contrast and color as motion. Sometimes, even a slightest movement of a shadow, or camera noise is enough to trigger motion recording. Back to top page

MS. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Karen is up on the Hill at a hearing and I’m sure she’d much rather be here. DR. HARDING: Okay. I was kind of wondering about the issue of codes and what the status of one.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to echo a little bit of what John and Jeff both said. The industry, I believe, is hungry for facts. So, the complaints that you get are a little bit different than John's. The complaints that you get, and the answers -- for example, you mentioned that there are some that come in that you don't think are worthwhile. Knowing what types they are, and that they are not worthwhile, everybody got ready, they think.

I'm Russ Localio. I was a co-investigator for this study, and two issues. First of all, it was designed to pick up adverse events that were caused outside of the hospital, but the assumption was that adverse events that were serious enough, would end up in a hospitalization where they would be counted. So, it was definitely not confined to adverse events that occurred, that were caused in a hospital.

MR. BLAIR: I support your recommendation, John, that we keep that all in one sentence. And even though it's unwieldy, I feel it's important that it all be together in one place. DR. LUMPKIN: And I think what the important part from the committee is that we need to refer to the entire rule, because researchers, even though they may focus on the Common Rule, are held accountable to the entire rule. DR. MAYS: I'm just saying I think if you can just call it either the federal rule or something.

DR. LUMPKIN: Okay, so we are approving the document with really two changes. The first change is on Section B, research. We are pulling out from the first paragraph, the discussion of where you can find the Protection of Research Subjects Rule into a note at the beginning of that section indicating that this rule, which is found on 45 CFR part 46 includes what is known as the Common Rule as part of -- some sentence to that effect.

MR. SCANLON: Thank you very much, John, welcome everyone. I’m going to try to make up some time on the agenda this morning but I wanted to report back to the committee since we met in late June I guess that progress continues on a number of developments relating to the NHII and health information technology and standards.

DR. LUMPKIN: Now I would have thought that you had learned your lesson from Lisa, it ain’t over until the report’s done. DR. LUMPKIN: But we appreciate you agreeing to work with us on this as we’re trying to get this report out after all of your significant effort leading our activities as a committee and moving forward the Quality agenda, so thank you. MR.

MS. GREENBERG: You need a new paragraph after this paragraph that we just read. You need one about that the committee also made the recommendations in November 2003 on core terminology standards. And you could even say that CHI is recommending standards that are consistent with this, but they have not yet been adopted. Do don't even have to mention that, but you do need to mention the November report. MR.

DR. LUMPKIN: Good, good, so I think that the volume actually of complaints is surprisingly low given as much attention was placed on that, and I know it’s still a challenge for your and OCR but we appreciate your hard work in there. DR. LUMPKIN: Well, thank you very much. We’ll move on to the next item on our agenda, you’re free to go.

MS. PICKETT: That's the AHIMA/AHA information is actually included in the NCVHS timeline. The first document on the development of 10-CM/PCS again just contains the complete history of the development of each of the respective classifications. MS. PICKETT: Well I can if that's what everyone would like but given that this document hasn't changed that much we can through this in a very summary fashion just to cover everything.

A Motion differs from a Request in that a defendant makes the Motion to the court and not the prosecution. In a Motion for Discovery you must justify your reasons for making certain requests for information and the court will decide if your request has merit. If the Court determines that your request is legitimate and the information is needed for your defense, it will order that the information be given you.

A motion is a written formal statement in which the party who is requesting an action, the movant, sets forth his grounds for the action requested. The party against whom the action is requested is the respondent. Hiring a competent attorney is highly recommended.

The official and latest version of this HTML document is available from its official sites and mirrors. If you're interested in maintaining a mirror of this document (especially for those outside of the United States), drop either of the maintainers a line.

You do the reading, of course, but being prepared for discussion is often not the same thing as making sure your eyes have passed over every word in the assigned texts. (I wish it were...) First of all, do not expect to cover all the readings in class in detail. If we talked about everything in class, you'd be forced to write essays that did nothing but rehash ideas and material we've already covered.

Under court rules, all filings are one document. In the computer world, however, documents tend to be 'uploaded' to the filing fields separately. This creates too many docket entries and is confusing. Therefore, you will find two fields at CFX to which to upload documents. The first field is for the "lead" document. This is to be used for the motion or lead opposition document. The second field is for the points and authorities, exhibits, certificate of service and proposed order.

of October 18, 2004, you may access a newly e-filed case immediately to e-file or view a document. You may also file a paper document on a newly e-filed case that same day at the courthouse during regular business hours. [Top]

Currently, you must file your motion to seal and your proposed sealed materials in paper format. The clerk's office will process the motion and create the docket entries associated with the filing. Please state in the text of the motion whether the motion to seal must be sealed. You cannot delete events or documents. If you have made an error (filed in the wrong case, submitted the wrong version of a document, etc.), call the clerk's office.

DR. STEINDEL: I had just a quick comment to Kepa concerning his comment on XML tags and I would just like him to make a note to hold that comment until we hear the preliminary report from CHI on text based reports because it may be a very appropriate comment with respect to that.

The Coverage Provisions mean that contributions do not have to be made into both country's systems for an employee seconded to work temporarily in the other country. The Australian Taxation Office is responsible for the administration of the coverage provisions. Contact the ATO if you require more information on this aspect of the Agreement.