Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Research, Demonstrations and Evaluations

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) conducts research, demonstrations, and evaluations in support of CMS' key role as a beneficiary-centered purchaser of high-quality health care at a reasonable cost. These grants are awarded are in th

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) conducts research, demonstrations, and evaluations in support of CMS' key role as a beneficiary-centered purchaser of high-quality health care at a reasonable cost. These grants are awarded are in the form of research grants and cooperative agreements; Hispanic health services grants; historically black colleges and university grants.

Grants or cooperative agreements may be made to private, or public agencies or organizations, including State agencies that administer the Medicaid program. Private profit organizations may apply.

All Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries are eligible.

Under all authorizations, all applications must meet standards of excellence in research or evaluation design. Funds may not be used for construction or renovation of buildings. Funds authorized by Section 1115 of the Social Security Act are limited to State agencies administering the Medicaid program. The research issues and/or hypotheses identified by a project should be clearly stated and realistic and should reflect the issues of interest to CMS and, where appropriate, HHS, Federal Government, and the broader health services research community. The research design should clearly identify the measures that will be collected and analyzed to address the issues and/or hypotheses. These proposed measures should reflect concepts and variables that are consistent with the stated issues and hypotheses. The research design should also address the reliability of measures - i.e., a measurement should not change when the concept being measured remains constant in value. A common reliability concern is the level of inter-rater reliability of an instrument, determined by the extent to which two or more persons measuring the same characteristic would assign the same score. The research design should address the validity of proposed measures - i.e., the extent to which differences in scores on variable or the measuring instrument represent true differences in the characteristic we are trying to measure, rather than constant or random errors or the influence of other factors.

Grants/cooperative agreements are generally funded on a 12-month basis, with support beyond the first year contingent upon acceptable evidence of satisfactory progress, continuing program relevance, and availability of funds.

CMS research and demonstration projects are solicited by publication in grants.gov as well.

The review process for grants/cooperative agreements consists of initially screening applications for completeness and relevancy to CMS priority areas. If the application is not relevant to CMS priority areas, it will be returned to the applicant. If accepted as submitted it will be reviewed and evaluated. The review will be conducted by a panel of not less than three experts. CMS Project Officer will coordinate the panel's review, but will not vote. This individual will also prepare the panel's recommendation to the Director, Office of Research, Development, and Information (ORDI). The panel's recommendations will contain numerical ratings, rankings of applications, and a written assessment of each application. The recommendations will be based on published criteria as stated in the Federal Register. The review process for applications is also stated in the Federal Register Announcement.

Official notice of approved applications is made through issuance of a Notice of Cooperative Agreement or Grant Award.

Range from 150 to 180 days.

Extensions and continuations of projects are available if formally applied for and approved. If a grant/cooperative agreement application is recommended for approval for 2 or more years, the awardee must annually submit a formal request for continuation accompanied by a progress report which will be evaluated prior to a recommendation of continuation.

No formal appeals procedures. If an application is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval will be fully stated. Applicants are free to resubmit applications with attention to the changes suggested by the reasons for disapproval. In the case of solicited proposals, extensions may be allowed to prepare revisions which clarify various aspects of projects.