Generic propecia price

Now Joe generic propecia price has a bill that he can’t pay. Read below to find out -- SHORT ANSWER. QMB or Medicaid will pay the Medicare coinsurance only in limited situations.

First, the generic propecia price provider must be a Medicaid provider. Second, even if the provider accepts Medicaid, under recent legislation in New York enacted in 2015 and 2016, QMB or Medicaid may pay only part of the coinsurance, or none at all. This depends in part on whether the beneficiary has Original Medicare or is in a Medicare Advantage plan, and in part on the type of service.

However, the bottom line is that the generic propecia price provider is barred from "balance billing" a QMB beneficiary for the Medicare coinsurance. Unfortunately, this creates tension between an individual and her doctors, pharmacies dispensing Part B medications, and other providers. Providers may not know they are not allowed to bill a QMB beneficiary for Medicare coinsurance, since they bill other Medicare beneficiaries.

Even those who know may pressure their patients to pay, or simply decline generic propecia price to serve them. These rights and the ramifications of these QMB rules are explained in this article. CMS is doing more education about QMB Rights.

The Medicare Handbook, since generic propecia price 2017, gives information about QMB Protections. Download the 2020 Medicare Handbook here. See pp.

53, 86 generic propecia price. 1. To Which Providers will QMB or Medicaid Pay the Medicare Co-Insurance?.

"Providers must enroll as generic propecia price Medicaid providers in order to bill Medicaid for the Medicare coinsurance." CMS Informational Bulletin issued January 6, 2012, titled "Billing for Services Provided to Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMBs). The CMS bulletin states, "If the provider wants Medicaid to pay the coinsurance, then the provider must register as a Medicaid provider under the state rules." If the provider chooses not to enroll as a Medicaid provider, they still may not "balance bill" the QMB recipient for the coinsurance. 2.

How generic propecia price Does a Provider that DOES accept Medicaid Bill for a QMB Beneficiary?. If beneficiary has Original Medicare -- The provider bills Medicaid - even if the QMB Beneficiary does not also have Medicaid. Medicaid is required to pay the provider for all Medicare Part A and B cost-sharing charges for a QMB beneficiary, even if the service is normally not covered by Medicaid (ie, chiropractic, podiatry and clinical social work care).

Whatever reimbursement Medicaid pays the provider constitutes by law payment in generic propecia price full, and the provider cannot bill the beneficiary for any difference remaining. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(n)(3)(A), NYS DOH 2000-ADM-7 If the QMB beneficiary is in a Medicare Advantage plan - The provider bills the Medicare Advantage plan, then bills Medicaid for the balance using a “16” code to get paid.

The provider must generic propecia price include the amount it received from Medicare Advantage plan. 3. For a Provider who accepts Medicaid, How Much of the Medicare Coinsurance will be Paid for a QMB or Medicaid Beneficiary in NYS?.

The answer to this question generic propecia price has changed by laws enacted in 2015 and 2016. In the proposed 2019 State Budget, Gov. Cuomo has proposed to reduce how much Medicaid pays for the Medicare costs even further.

The amount Medicaid pays is different depending on whether the generic propecia price individual has Original Medicare or is a Medicare Advantage plan, with better payment for those in Medicare Advantage plans. The answer also differs based on the type of service. Part A Deductibles and Coinsurance - Medicaid pays the full Part A hospital deductible ($1,408 in 2020) and Skilled Nursing Facility coinsurance ($176/day) for days 20 - 100 of a rehab stay.

Full payment is made generic propecia price for QMB beneficiaries and Medicaid recipients who have no spend-down. Payments are reduced if the beneficiary has a Medicaid spend-down. For in-patient hospital deductible, Medicaid will pay only if six times the monthly spend-down has been met.

For example, if Mary has a $200/month spend down which has not been met otherwise, Medicaid will generic propecia price pay only $164 of the hospital deductible (the amount exceeding 6 x $200). See more on spend-down here. Medicare Part B - Deductible - Currently, Medicaid pays the full Medicare approved charges until the beneficiary has met the annual deductible, which is $198 in 2020.

For example, Dr generic propecia price. John charges $500 for a visit, for which the Medicare approved charge is $198. Medicaid pays the entire $198, meeting the deductible.

If the beneficiary has a spend-down, then the Medicaid generic propecia price payment would be subject to the spend-down. In the 2019 proposed state budget, Gov. Cuomo proposed to reduce the amount Medicaid pays toward the deductible to the same amount paid for coinsurance during the year, described below.

This proposal was REJECTED by the state generic propecia price legislature. Co-Insurance - The amount medicaid pays in NYS is different for Original Medicare and Medicare Advantage. If individual has Original Medicare, QMB/Medicaid will pay the 20% Part B coinsurance only to the extent the total combined payment the provider receives from Medicare and Medicaid is the lesser of the Medicaid or Medicare rate for the service.

For example, if generic propecia price the Medicare rate for a service is $100, the coinsurance is $20. If the Medicaid rate for the same service is only $80 or less, Medicaid would pay nothing, as it would consider the doctor fully paid = the provider has received the full Medicaid rate, which is lesser than the Medicare rate. Exceptions - Medicaid/QMB wil pay the full coinsurance for the following services, regardless of the Medicaid rate.

ambulance and psychologists - The Gov's 2019 proposal to eliminate these generic propecia price exceptions was rejected. hospital outpatient clinic, certain facilities operating under certificates issued under the Mental Hygiene Law for people with developmental disabilities, psychiatric disability, and chemical dependence (Mental Hygiene Law Articles 16, 31 or 32). SSL 367-a, subd.

1(d)(iii)-(v) , as amended 2015 If individual is in a Medicare Advantage plan, 85% of the copayment will be paid to the provider (must be a Medicaid provider), regardless of how generic propecia price low the Medicaid rate is. This limit was enacted in the 2016 State Budget, and is better than what the Governor proposed - which was the same rule used in Original Medicare -- NONE of the copayment or coinsurance would be paid if the Medicaid rate was lower than the Medicare rate for the service, which is usually the case. This would have deterred doctors and other providers from being willing to treat them.

SSL generic propecia price 367-a, subd. 1(d)(iv), added 2016. EXCEPTIONS.

The Medicare Advantage plan must generic propecia price pay the full coinsurance for the following services, regardless of the Medicaid rate. ambulance ) psychologist ) The Gov's proposal in the 2019 budget to eliminate these exceptions was rejected by the legislature Example to illustrate the current rules. The Medicare rate for Mary's specialist visit is $185.

The Medicaid rate for the same service generic propecia price is $120. Current rules (since 2016). Medicare Advantage -- Medicare Advantage plan pays $135 and Mary is charged a copayment of $50 (amount varies by plan).

Medicaid pays the specialist 85% generic propecia price of the $50 copayment, which is $42.50. The doctor is prohibited by federal law from "balance billing" QMB beneficiaries for the balance of that copayment. Since provider is getting $177.50 of the $185 approved rate, provider will hopefully not be deterred from serving Mary or other QMBs/Medicaid recipients.

Original Medicare - The 20% generic propecia price coinsurance is $37. Medicaid pays none of the coinsurance because the Medicaid rate ($120) is lower than the amount the provider already received from Medicare ($148). For both Medicare Advantage and Original Medicare, if the bill was for a ambulance or psychologist, Medicaid would pay the full 20% coinsurance regardless of the Medicaid rate.

The proposal to eliminate this generic propecia price exception was rejected by the legislature in 2019 budget. . 4.

May the Provider 'Balance Bill" a QMB Benficiary for the Coinsurance if Provider Does Not Accept Medicaid, or if Neither the generic propecia price Patient or Medicaid/QMB pays any coinsurance?. No. Balance billing is banned by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

42 U.S.C generic propecia price. § 1396a(n)(3)(A). In an Informational Bulletin issued January 6, 2012, titled "Billing for Services Provided to Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMBs)," the federal Medicare agency - CMS - clarified that providers MAY NOT BILL QMB recipients for the Medicare coinsurance.

This is true whether generic propecia price or not the provider is registered as a Medicaid provider. If the provider wants Medicaid to pay the coinsurance, then the provider must register as a Medicaid provider under the state rules. This is a change in policy in implementing Section 1902(n)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act), as modified by section 4714 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which prohibits Medicare providers from balance-billing QMBs for Medicare cost-sharing.

The CMS letter states, "All Medicare physicians, providers, and suppliers who offer services and supplies to QMBs are prohibited from billing QMBs for generic propecia price Medicare cost-sharing, including deductible, coinsurance, and copayments. This section of the Act is available at. CMCS Informational Bulletin http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1902.htm.

QMBs have no legal obligation to make further payment to a provider or generic propecia price Medicare managed care plan for Part A or Part B cost sharing. Providers who inappropriately bill QMBs for Medicare cost-sharing are subject to sanctions. Please note that the statute referenced above supersedes CMS State Medicaid Manual, Chapter 3, Eligibility, 3490.14 (b), which is no longer in effect, but may be causing confusion about QMB billing." The same information was sent to providers in this Medicare Learning Network bulletin, last revised in June 26, 2018.

CMS reminded Medicare Advantage plans of the rule generic propecia price against Balance Billing in the 2017 Call Letter for plan renewals. See this excerpt of the 2017 call letter by Justice in Aging - Prohibition on Billing Medicare-Medicaid Enrollees for Medicare Cost Sharing 5. How do QMB Beneficiaries Show a Provider that they have QMB and cannot be Billed for the Coinsurance?.

It can be difficult generic propecia price to show a provider that one is a QMB. It is especially difficult for providers who are not Medicaid providers to identify QMB's, since they do not have access to online Medicaid eligibility systems Consumers can now call 1-800-MEDICARE to verify their QMB Status and report a billing issue. If a consumer reports a balance billng problem to this number, the Customer Service Rep can escalate the complaint to the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), which will send a compliance letter to the provider with a copy to the consumer.

See CMS Medicare Learning Network Bulletin effective Dec generic propecia price. 16, 2016. Medicare Summary Notices (MSNs) that Medicare beneficiaries receive every three months state that QMBs have no financial liability for co-insurance for each Medicare-covered service listed on the MSN.

The Remittance generic propecia price Advice (RA) that Medicare sends to providers shows the same information. By spelling out billing protections on a service-by-service basis, the MSNs provide clarity for both the QMB beneficiary and the provider. Justice in Aging has posted samples of what the new MSNs look like here.

They have also updated Justice in Aging’s Improper Billing Toolkit to incorporate references to the MSNs generic propecia price in its model letters that you can use to advocate for clients who have been improperly billed for Medicare-covered services. CMS is implementing systems changes that will notify providers when they process a Medicare claim that the patient is QMB and has no cost-sharing liability. The Medicare Summary Notice sent to the beneficiary will also state that the beneficiary has QMB and no liability.

These changes were scheduled to go into effect in October 2017, but have generic propecia price been delayed. Read more about them in this Justice in Aging Issue Brief on New Strategies in Fighting Improper Billing for QMBs (Feb. 2017).

QMBs are issued a generic propecia price Medicaid benefit card (by mail), even if they do not also receive Medicaid. The card is the mechanism for health care providers to bill the QMB program for the Medicare deductibles and co-pays. Unfortunately, the Medicaid card does not indicate QMB eligibility.

Not all people who have Medicaid also have QMB generic propecia price (they may have higher incomes and "spend down" to the Medicaid limits. Advocates have asked for a special QMB card, or a notation on the Medicaid card to show that the individual has QMB. See this Report - a National Survey on QMB Identification Practices published by Justice in Aging, authored by Peter Travitsky, NYLAG EFLRP staff attorney.

The Report, generic propecia price published in March 2017, documents how QMB beneficiaries could be better identified in order to ensure providers do not bill them improperly. What Codes the Provider Sees in eMedNY &. EPACES Medicaid eligibility system - see GIS 16 MA/005 - Changes to eMedNY for Certain Medicaid Recipient Coverage Codes (PDF) ​​​​​​​Recipient Coverage Code "09" is defined as "Medicare Savings Program only" (MSP) and is used along with an eMedNY Buy-in span and MSP code of "P" to define a Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB).

Providers will receive the generic propecia price following eligibility messages when verifying coverage on EMEVS and ePaces. "Medicare coinsurance and deductible only" for individuals with Coverage Code 06 and an MSP code of P. *Code 06 is "provisional Medicaid coverage" for Medicaid recipients found provisionally eligible for Medicaid, subject to meeting the spend-down.

See more about provisional coverage here generic propecia price. "Family Planning Benefit and Medicare Coinsurance and Ded" for individuals with Coverage Code 18 and an MSP code of P. "Code 18" is for Medicare beneficiaries who are enrolled in the Family Planning Benefit Program (FPBP), who are also income eligible for QMB.

6 generic propecia price. If you are Billed -​ Strategies Consumers can now call 1-800-MEDICARE to report a billing issue. If a consumer reports a balance billng problem to this number, the Customer Service Rep can escalate the complaint to the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), which will send a compliance letter to the provider with a copy to the consumer.

See generic propecia price CMS Medicare Learning Network Bulletin effective Dec. 16, 2016. Send a letter to the provider, using the Justice In Aging Model model letters to providers to explain QMB rights.​​​ both for Original Medicare (Letters 1-2) and Medicare Advantage (Letters 3-5) - see Overview of model letters.

Include a link to the CMS Medicare Learning Network generic propecia price Notice. Prohibition on Balance Billing Dually Eligible Individuals Enrolled in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) Program (revised June 26. 2018) In January 2017, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau issued this guide to QMB billing.

A consumer who has a problem with debt collection, may also submit a complaint online or call the CFPB at 1-855-411-2372 generic propecia price. TTY/TDD users can call 1-855-729-2372. Medicare Advantage members should complain to their Medicare Advantage plan.

In its 2017 Call Letter, CMS stressed to Medicare Advantage contractors that federal regulations at generic propecia price 42 C.F.R. § 422.504 (g)(1)(iii), require that provider contracts must prohibit collection of deductibles and co-payments from dual eligibles and QMBs. Toolkit to Help Protect QMB Rights ​​In July 2015, CMS issued a report, "Access to Care Issues Among Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMB's)" documenting how pervasive illegal attempts to bill QMBs for the Medicare coinsurance, including those who are members of managed care plans.

Justice in Aging, generic propecia price a national advocacy organization, has a project to educate beneficiaries about balance billing and to advocate for stronger protections for QMBs. Links to their webinars and other resources is at this link. Their information includes.

September 4, 2009, updated 6/20/20 by Valerie Bogart, NYLAG generic propecia price Author. Cathy Roberts. Author.

Geoffrey Hale This article was authored by the Empire Justice Center.Some "dual eligible" beneficiaries (people who have Medicare and Medicaid) are entitled generic propecia price to receive reimbursement of their Medicare Part B premiums from New York State through the Medicare Insurance Premium Payment Program (MIPP). The Part B premium is $148.50 in 2021. MIPP is for some groups who are either not eligible for -- or who are not yet enrolled in-- the Medicare Savings Program (MSP), which is the main program that pays the Medicare Part B premium for low-income people.

Some people are generic propecia price not eligible for an MSP even though they have full Medicaid with no spend down. This is because they are in a special Medicaid eligibility category -- discussed below -- with Medicaid income limits that are actually HIGHER than the MSP income limits. MIPP reimburses them for their Part B premium because they have “full Medicaid” (no spend down) but are ineligible for MSP because their income is above the MSP SLIMB level (120% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).

Even if their income is under generic propecia price the QI-1 MSP level (135% FPL), someone cannot have both QI-1 and Medicaid). Instead, these consumers can have their Part B premium reimbursed through the MIPP program. In this article.

The MIPP program was established because the State determined that generic propecia price those who have full Medicaid and Medicare Part B should be reimbursed for their Part B premium, even if they do not qualify for MSP, because Medicare is considered cost effective third party health insurance, and because consumers must enroll in Medicare as a condition of eligibility for Medicaid (See 89 ADM 7). There are generally four groups of dual-eligible consumers that are eligible for MIPP. Therefore, many MBI WPD consumers have incomes higher than what MSP normally allows, but still have full Medicaid with no spend down.

Those consumers can qualify for MIPP and have generic propecia price their Part B premiums reimbursed. Here is an example. Sam is age 50 and has Medicare and MBI-WPD.

She gets generic propecia price $1500/mo gross from Social Security Disability and also makes $400/month through work activity. $ 167.50 -- EARNED INCOME - Because she is disabled, the DAB earned income disregard applies. $400 - $65 = $335.

Her countable earned income is 1/2 of $335 = $167.50 + $1500.00 -- UNEARNED INCOME from Social Security Disability = $1,667.50 generic propecia price --TOTAL income. This is above the SLIMB limit of $1,288 (2021) but she can still qualify for MIPP. 2.

Parent/Caretaker Relatives with MAGI-like Budgeting - Including Medicare generic propecia price Beneficiaries. Consumers who fall into the DAB category (Age 65+/Disabled/Blind) and would otherwise be budgeted with non-MAGI rules can opt to use Affordable Care Act MAGI rules if they are the parent/caretaker of a child under age 18 or under age 19 and in school full time. This is referred to as “MAGI-like budgeting.” Under MAGI rules income can be up to 138% of the FPL—again, higher than the limit for DAB budgeting, which is equivalent to only 83% FPL.

MAGI-like consumers can be enrolled in either MSP or MIPP, depending on generic propecia price if their income is higher or lower than 120% of the FPL. If their income is under 120% FPL, they are eligible for MSP as a SLIMB. If income is above 120% FPL, then they can enroll in MIPP.

(See GIS 18 MA/001 - generic propecia price 2018 Medicaid Managed Care Transition for Enrollees Gaining Medicare, #4) 3. New Medicare Enrollees who are Not Yet in a Medicare Savings Program When a consumer has Medicaid through the New York State of Health (NYSoH) Marketplace and then enrolls in Medicare when she turns age 65 or because she received Social Security Disability for 24 months, her Medicaid case is normally** transferred to the local department of social services (LDSS)(HRA in NYC) to be rebudgeted under non-MAGI budgeting. During the transition process, she should be reimbursed for the Part B premiums via MIPP.

However, the transition time can vary based on generic propecia price age. AGE 65+ For those who enroll in Medicare at age 65+, the Medicaid case takes about four months to be rebudgeted and approved by the LDSS. The consumer is entitled to MIPP payments for at least three months during the transition.

Once the case is with the LDSS she should automatically be re-evaluated for generic propecia price MSP. Consumers UNDER 65 who receive Medicare due to disability status are entitled to keep MAGI Medicaid through NYSoH for up to 12 months (also known as continuous coverage, See NY Social Services Law 366, subd. 4(c).

These consumers should receive MIPP payments for generic propecia price as long as their cases remain with NYSoH and throughout the transition to the LDSS. NOTE during hair loss treatment emergency their case may remain with NYSoH for more than 12 months. See here.

See GIS 18 MA/001 - 2018 Medicaid Managed Care Transition for Enrollees Gaining Medicare, #4 for an explanation of this generic propecia price process. Note. During the hair loss treatment emergency, those who have Medicaid through the NYSOH marketplace and enroll in Medicare should NOT have their cases transitioned to the LDSS.

They should keep the generic propecia price same MAGI budgeting and automatically receive MIPP payments. See GIS 20 MA/04 or this article on hair loss treatment eligibility changes 4. Those with Special Budgeting after Losing SSI (DAC, Pickle, 1619b) Disabled Adult Child (DAC).

Special budgeting generic propecia price is available to those who are 18+ and lose SSI because they begin receiving Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits (or receive an increase in the amount of their benefit). Consumer must have become disabled or blind before age 22 to receive the benefit. If the new DAC benefit amount was disregarded and the consumer would otherwise be eligible for SSI, they can keep Medicaid eligibility with NO SPEND DOWN.

See this generic propecia price article. Consumers may have income higher than MSP limits, but keep full Medicaid with no spend down. Therefore, they are eligible for payment of their Part B premiums.

See page 96 of the Medicaid Reference Guide generic propecia price (Categorical Factors). If their income is lower than the MSP SLIMB threshold, they can be added to MSP. If higher than the threshold, they can be reimbursed via MIPP.

See also 95-ADM-11. Medical Assistance Eligibility for Disabled Adult Children, Section C (pg 8). Pickle &.

1619B. 5. When the Part B Premium Reduces Countable Income to Below the Medicaid Limit Since the Part B premium can be used as a deduction from gross income, it may reduce someone's countable income to below the Medicaid limit.

The consumer should be paid the difference to bring her up to the Medicaid level ($904/month in 2021). They will only be reimbursed for the difference between their countable income and $904, not necessarily the full amount of the premium. See GIS 02-MA-019.

Reimbursement of Health Insurance Premiums MIPP and MSP are similar in that they both pay for the Medicare Part B premium, but there are some key differences. MIPP structures the payments as reimbursement -- beneficiaries must continue to pay their premium (via a monthly deduction from their Social Security check or quarterly billing, if they do not receive Social Security) and then are reimbursed via check. In contrast, MSP enrollees are not charged for their premium.

Their Social Security check usually increases because the Part B premium is no longer withheld from their check. MIPP only provides reimbursement for Part B. It does not have any of the other benefits MSPs can provide, such as.

A consumer cannot have MIPP without also having Medicaid, whereas MSP enrollees can have MSP only. Of the above benefits, Medicaid also provides Part D Extra Help automatic eligibility. There is no application process for MIPP because consumers should be screened and enrolled automatically (00 OMM/ADM-7).

Either the state or the LDSS is responsible for screening &. Distributing MIPP payments, depending on where the Medicaid case is held and administered (14 /2014 LCM-02 Section V). If a consumer is eligible for MIPP and is not receiving it, they should contact whichever agency holds their case and request enrollment.

Unfortunately, since there is no formal process for applying, it may require some advocacy. If Medicaid case is at New York State of Health they should call 1-855-355-5777. Consumers will likely have to ask for a supervisor in order to find someone familiar with MIPP.

If Medicaid case is with HRA in New York City, they should email mipp@hra.nyc.gov. If Medicaid case is with other local districts in NYS, call your local county DSS. Once enrolled, it make take a few months for payments to begin.

Payments will be made in the form of checks from the Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), the fiscal agent for the New York State Medicaid program. The check itself comes attached to a remittance notice from Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS). Unfortunately, the notice is not consumer-friendly and may be confusing.

Propecia effect on sperm

Propecia
Finast
Proscar
Dutas
Best price
Pharmacy
Online Drugstore
Nearby pharmacy
Indian Pharmacy
Where to buy
Flu-like symptoms
Muscle or back pain
Stuffy or runny nose
Muscle or back pain
Discount price
1mg 10 tablet $14.95
$
5mg 120 tablet $123.95
$

Respiratory viral s propecia effect on sperm present a major threat to global health and prosperity. Over the past century, several have developed into crippling propecias, including the hair loss propecia. Although the generation of neutralizing serum antibodies in response to natural immunity and vaccination are considered to be hallmarks of viral immune protection, antibodies from long-lived plasma cells are subject to immune escape from heterologous clades of zoonotic, recombined, or mutated propeciaes. Local immunity in the lung can be generated through resident memory immune subsets that rapidly respond to propecia effect on sperm secondary and protect from heterologous .

Although many immune cells are required to achieve the phenomenon of resident memory, herein we highlight the pleiotropic functions of CD4 tissue resident memory T cells in the lung and discuss the implications of resident memory for treatment design.Jean-Laurent Casanova Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &. Editing 1St. Giles Laboratory of Human Genetics of Infectious Diseases, Rockefeller Branch, Rockefeller University, New York, NY10Laboratory of Human Genetics of Infectious Diseases, Necker Branch, Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale Unité Mixte de Recherches 1163, Necker Hospital for Sick Children, Paris, France11University of Paris, Imagine Institute, Paris, France19Howard Hughes Medical Institute, New York, NY Search for other works by this author on:.

Respiratory viral s present a major threat Where can you buy zithromax over the counter to global generic propecia price health and prosperity. Over the past century, several have developed into crippling propecias, including the hair loss propecia. Although the generation of neutralizing serum antibodies in response to natural immunity and vaccination are considered to be hallmarks of viral immune protection, antibodies from long-lived plasma cells are subject to immune escape from heterologous clades of zoonotic, recombined, or mutated propeciaes.

Local immunity in the lung can be generated through resident memory immune subsets that rapidly respond to secondary and protect from heterologous generic propecia price . Although many immune cells are required to achieve the phenomenon of resident memory, herein we highlight the pleiotropic functions of CD4 tissue resident memory T cells in the lung and discuss the implications of resident memory for treatment design.Jean-Laurent Casanova Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &. Editing 1St.

Giles Laboratory of Human Genetics of Infectious Diseases, Rockefeller Branch, Rockefeller University, New York, NY10Laboratory of Human Genetics of Infectious Diseases, Necker Branch, Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale Unité Mixte de Recherches 1163, Necker Hospital for Sick Children, Paris, France11University of Paris, Imagine Institute, Paris, France19Howard Hughes Medical Institute, New York, NY Search for other works by this author on:.

What if I miss a dose?

If you miss a dose, take it as soon as you can. If you do not remember until the next day, take only that day's dose. Do not take double or extra doses.

Propecia birth defects

AbstractIn ‘Chronic propecia birth defects fatigue syndrome and an illness-focused approach to care. Controversy, morality and paradox’, authors Michael Sharpe and Monica Greco begin by characterising myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) as illness-without-disease. On that basis they ask why patients reject treatments for illness-without-disease, and they answer with a philosophical idea. Whitehead’s ‘bifurcation of nature’, they suggest, still dominates public and professional thinking, propecia birth defects and that conceptual confusion leads patients to reject the treatment they need. A great deal has occurred, however, since Whitehead characterised his culture’s confusions 100 years ago.

In our time, I suggest, experience is no longer construed as an invalid second cousin of bodily states in philosophy, in medicine or in the culture at large. More importantly, we must propecia birth defects evaluate medical explanations before we reach for philosophical alternatives. The National Institutes of Health and the Institute of Medicine have concluded that ME/CFS is, in fact, a biomedical disease, and all US governmental health organisations now agree. Although it would be productive for Sharpe and Greco to state and support their disagreement with the other side of the disease debate, it is no longer tenable, or safe, to ignore the possibility of disease in patients with ME/CFS, or to recommend that clinicians should do so. When we find ourselves in a framework that suggests the possibility of medical need is somehow beside the point for medical providers, it is time to reconsider our conceptual foundations.medical humanitiespsychiatrymedical ethics/bioethicsphilosophy of medicine/health carehealth policy.

AbstractIn ‘Chronic http://spinslotsdeals.com/how-to-get-a-symbicort-prescription-from-your-doctor/ fatigue syndrome and an generic propecia price illness-focused approach to care. Controversy, morality and paradox’, authors Michael Sharpe and Monica Greco begin by characterising myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) as illness-without-disease. On that basis they ask why patients reject treatments for illness-without-disease, and they answer with a philosophical idea. Whitehead’s ‘bifurcation of nature’, they suggest, still dominates public and professional thinking, and that conceptual confusion leads patients to reject the treatment they need generic propecia price.

A great deal has occurred, however, since Whitehead characterised his culture’s confusions 100 years ago. In our time, I suggest, experience is no longer construed as an invalid second cousin of bodily states in philosophy, in medicine or in the culture at large. More importantly, we must evaluate medical explanations before we reach for philosophical generic propecia price alternatives. The National Institutes of Health and the Institute of Medicine have concluded that ME/CFS is, in fact, a biomedical disease, and all US governmental health organisations now agree.

Although it would be productive for Sharpe and Greco to state and support their disagreement with the other side of the disease debate, it is no longer tenable, or safe, to ignore the possibility of disease in patients with ME/CFS, or to recommend that clinicians should do so. When we find ourselves in a framework that suggests the possibility of medical need is somehow beside the point for medical providers, it is time to reconsider our conceptual foundations.medical humanitiespsychiatrymedical ethics/bioethicsphilosophy of medicine/health carehealth policy.

Propecia and erectile dysfunction

Lord Scarman’s judgment about when someone under the age of 16 years should have the right to make their own medical decisions emphasised the decision-making abilities of the particular child propecia and erectile dysfunction. He said:…the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of 16 will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves a sufficient understanding and intelligence propecia and erectile dysfunction to enable him or her to understand fully what is proposed (p188–189).1That created a duty on healthcare practitioners to assess whether a particular minor has decision-making abilities at a degree that would enable them to understand the decision to a high extent, sufficient hopefully that they would ‘own’ the decision. In December of 2020, the High Court considered whether young people with gender dysphoria (GD) and seeking access to puberty blocking (PB) therapy, were likely to pass Scarman’s mature minor test and cast doubt on their ability to fully understand that decision, thereby making it less likely that a healthcare practitioner would decide they are a mature minor for that therapy. The High Court said:It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 propecia and erectile dysfunction or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers (p151).2Since then, the Journal of Medical Ethics has published papers about the ethical issues raised by that judgment.

Beattie, writing at the time the judgment was made, disagreed with the High Court and claimed that the decision to take puberty blockers is no more complex than many of the other medical decisions that minors are assessed as being competent to make.3 Central to the High Court’s decision was the claim that the decision to start PB therapy (the first stage of therapy propecia and erectile dysfunction for GD) is inextricably linked to the more permanent and significant, cross-sex hormone (CSH) therapy. That meant the abilities required to fully understand what was proposed became very demanding because they would require someone who had not yet gone through puberty to know what a second round of treatment, that would result in permanent and complex changes, would mean for them. Beattie objects to that claim for several reasons including that ‘…high progression rates to CSH may merely represent successful identification of persistent GD, rather than PBs promoting persistence’ (p4).Giordano et al consider the possibility that consenting to PB might be more complex than other treatments a minor might consent to.4 They point out that many other medical decisions are similarly complex and emotionally involving, so PB should not be viewed differently from other decisions a minor might take.The High Court’s judgment was recently overturned by the Court of Appeal who criticised the judgment on a number of grounds, including the implications that it propecia and erectile dysfunction would have for those seeking therapy for GD.Moreover, the effect of the guidance was to require applications to the court in circumstances where the Divisional Court itself had recognised that there was no legal obligation to do so. It placed patients, parents and clinicians in a very difficult position. In practice the guidance would have the effect propecia and erectile dysfunction of denying treatment in many circumstances for want of resources to make such an application coupled with inevitable delay through court involvement (p86).5While some might read that as an ethical point about access to therapy, the Court of Appeal is making a legal point about when it is appropriate for the court to become involved and the costs of them doing so.

That kind of concern continues where they object to the court making age-based recommendations about the likely ability of young people to consent.We conclude that it was inappropriate for the Divisional Court to give the guidance concerning when a court application will be appropriate and to reach general age-related conclusions about the likelihood or probability of different cohorts of children being capable of giving consent (p89).5Predictably, the Court of Appeal judgment has been hailed as ‘a positive step forwards for trans rights in the UK and around the world’.6 It is important to be clear, though, about exactly what was and what was not an issue here. The court was careful not to take a position on the debate about PBs propecia and erectile dysfunction. It recognised that this is an ongoing propecia and erectile dysfunction controversy. €˜The present proceedings do not require the courts to determine whether the treatment for GD is a wise or unwise course’.5Furthermore, there is nothing in the judgment about how often minors seeking access to PBs will be assessed as competent to make that decision, nor about what they will need to demonstrate in order to show that competence.As we have already said, the principle enunciated in Gillick was that it was for clinicians rather than the court to decide on competence (p87).5The point is precisely that it is not appropriate for courts to involve themselves in such matters. It will be for clinicians to make that propecia and erectile dysfunction determination.

There is nothing inherent to the nature of PBs that set them apart from other healthcare decisions, nothing that justifies the court intruding on what is a well-recognised area of clinical expertise.Certainly, it is not for the court to require that young people accept as matters of fact propositions that are currently factually contested or complex, such as the claim that PBs almost always serve as precursors to ‘much greater medical interventions’. And it is propecia and erectile dysfunction not for the court to issue guidance, in general terms, about when capacity assessments should require judicial intervention.There was a recognition here that this is a ‘difficult and controversial area’, where facts are contested and deep-seated values set in conflict. But as the court acknowledged, the concept of ‘Gillick competence’ arose in a context where that could also have been said of the provision of contraceptives to minors. Generalisations about capacity assessment were no more appropriate here than they were back in that earlier context.Ethics statementsPatient consent for publicationNot required.IntroductionIn the last decade there has been a marked increase in patients labelled with pre-diabetes in the UK.1 propecia and erectile dysfunction The ‘diagnosis’ of pre-diabetes is made on the basis of a patient having one or more markers of abnormal blood glucose. Levels are higher than normal but have not reached the threshold where the patient gets diagnosed as diabetic.

Patients with blood propecia and erectile dysfunction sugar levels in a pre-diabetic range are asymptomatic and disease free. The rationale behind labelling patients as pre-diabetic is that patients with pre-diabetes are at higher risk of going on to develop type 2 diabetes.2 Type 2 diabetes can cause significant mortality and morbidity.3 There is evidence that lifestyle change (altered diet and increased physical activity) in patients with pre-diabetes can prevent progression to diabetes.4 Although patients may be labelled as ‘pre-diabetic’, and this might look like a diagnosis of a pathological condition, pre-diabetes is a risk factor for the development of diabetes, not a disease in its own right.5Pre-diabetes is highly prevalent in Western countries. Its prevalence rises with age, propecia and erectile dysfunction and by age 75 years nearly 50% of the population in the USA is classified as pre-diabetic or diabetic.6 7 However, not all patients with pre-diabetes will develop diabetes. The risk of a person with pre-diabetes progressing to diabetes within 12 months is between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20.8 This annual conversion rate drops even lower as patients age.9 A 12-year follow-up propecia and erectile dysfunction of older adults with pre-diabetes, showed most remained stable or reverted to normal blood sugar levels, whereas only one‐third developed diabetes or died.10If a person develops diabetes, they do not automatically develop symptoms or complications. Complications, such as retinopathy and renal disease, develop over time and are more likely to occur the longer a patient has suffered with diabetes.11 Therefore, if a patient is approaching the end of their life, developing type 2 diabetes may have no direct impact on their health or quality of life.In order for a patient to eventually benefit from the label of pre-diabetes they must fulfil three criteria.

They must:Be in the group of patients that are going to convert from pre-diabetes to diabetes.Be in the group of patients that are going to develop symptoms or complications propecia and erectile dysfunction of diabetes.Be in the group of patients for whom lifestyle changes or medication can prevent the conversion from pre-diabetes to diabetes.If a patient does not belong to all three of these groups then labelling them as pre-diabetic will not confer any benefit to them. As conversion rates from pre-diabetes to diabetes reduce as a person ages and shortening life expectancy (which inevitably comes with ageing) reduces the risk of developing complications from diabetes, there is going to be a point in any patient’s life, even assuming that lifestyle changes could prevent progression to diabetes, where a patient will not benefit from knowing they have pre-diabetes. Calculating the exact age at which that will occur for an individual patient is problematic but certain general principles can be established to help clinicians decide on the benefit of labelling.This paper explores the pros and cons of a pre-diabetes label and a pragmatic ethical approach that could be taken by clinicians propecia and erectile dysfunction when faced with a new unanticipated pre-diabetic blood result that has been discovered through ‘routine’ blood tests.What are the harms of a pre-diabetes label?. The treatment for pre-diabetes is, in essence, adopting a healthier diet and taking more exercise. If adopted propecia and erectile dysfunction and maintained, these lifestyle changes are likely to benefit most patients in multiple aspects of health, not just their risk of developing diabetes.

However, although they may slightly delay the point at which a patient develops diabetes, studies of lifestyle-based diabetes prevention programmes show that most patients do not or cannot maintain long-term lifestyle changes.5 12 Weight loss is generally short term or minimal and patients usually slip back into old habits and routines. While there is undoubtedly an argument for informing younger patients who may receive a benefit from knowing they have pre-diabetes, the harms of informing increase with age.Many elderly patients with comorbidities may struggle to increase physical propecia and erectile dysfunction activity. Dietary change and attempts to lose weight after a certain age can have detrimental health effects13 Labelling somebody as having a medical condition carries a psychological burden in itself, and being unable to engage in the behaviour change recommended may also have negative consequences, that is, engendering a feeling of being ‘a failure’.14–16 If the label leads to further follow-up this may also place a burden on patients. There are also considerable implications for the use of propecia and erectile dysfunction health resources if the labelling of individuals as pre-diabetic requires further follow-up and intervention. Annual blood tests are standard (£6.42), subsequent general practitioner (GP) or nurse (£30) appointments to discuss results frequently take place as do referrals on to the national Diabetes Prevention Programme (£270).17 There are roughly 3 million people in the UK propecia and erectile dysfunction aged 80 years or over.18 If one-third of them have pre-diabetes and, of those, half have an annual blood test, a quarter have a GP appointment and one in eight get referred to the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme that is an annual cost of around £37 million.What is ideal practice and what is the reality?.

While some patients may have been tested following screening for being at risk of diabetes, in the UK most patients in whom pre-diabetes is diagnosed have blood sugar level tests carried out as part of a battery of other blood tests that are performed as part of annual chronic disease monitoring for conditions such as hypertension.19 The contents of the battery are determined by individual practices and usually based on guidance and payment targets issued by the NHS.20 In theory, a patient should give informed consent before any test, including blood sugar and HbA1c testing. In reality many patients who are given a diagnosis of pre-diabetes are unaware that they had blood tests for diabetes/pre-diabetes.19 When checking blood glucose or HbA1c in an elderly patient, especially one without symptoms of diabetes, the clinician should talk through with them propecia and erectile dysfunction the potential outcomes of the test and the implications this may have to them. The patient can then make an informed decision as to whether they want to go ahead with testing or not. In routine clinical practice in propecia and erectile dysfunction the UK this happens rarely, if at all. This is likely due to the volume of blood testing, the automated nature of the process, the limited time a clinician has to devote to each individual patient and the priority that individual clinicians assign to such conversations.As we discussed in a recent paper a more individualised approach to ‘routine’ blood tests needs to be taken.19 The utility of each test should be gauged for each patient as an individual, not as the average patient that has a particular disease.

The reality, however, is that this change will, at best, be adopted slowly or, at worst, propecia and erectile dysfunction not at all. What then, should clinicians who are presented with a pre-diabetic blood result in an elderly patient do?. The see-saw model propecia and erectile dysfunction of paternalismWhen faced with a series of test results for a patient, clinicians exercise judgement about what they consider ‘normal’ or ‘satisfactory’. They also exercise judgement in what they communicate to the patient about the results. In certain circumstances a patient may, for instance, have a mildly raised bilirubin or mildly decreased albumin and the clinician may file the result as ‘satisfactory’ and not inform the patient propecia and erectile dysfunction.

Is this an act of paternalism or is it propecia and erectile dysfunction the act of a clinician filtering out the ‘noise’ that is generated from carrying out tests and using an individual patient’s circumstances to contextualise what is ‘normal’?. Should clinicians, therefore, assume that all new pre-diabetic blood results above a certain age should not be disclosed to patients?. This is obviously an indefensible position as a general policy since patients have a right to information that concerns their propecia and erectile dysfunction health. However, while the blood result may be a factual piece of data, the labelling of a result as ‘satisfactory’, ‘acceptable’ or ‘abnormal’ is a clinical judgement. There is, in most circumstances, a moral obligation on the clinician to disclose to a patient that they are suffering with a propecia and erectile dysfunction disease.

Pre-diabetes is not a disease and unless a patient fulfils the three criteria set out in the introduction to this paper the information is not likely to benefit the patient.In younger patients, where the criteria related to a significant likelihood of progressing to diabetes with negative health effects are likely to be fulfilled, there is an onus on the clinician to inform patients they have pre-diabetes. In many younger propecia and erectile dysfunction patients it will be difficult to judge whether they fulfil the third criterion and can successfully change their lifestyle. In these cases the likely benefits of ‘diagnosis’ outweigh any potential drawback. However, as a patient ages and develops certain other comorbidities, a tipping point is reached where the criteria are very unlikely to be propecia and erectile dysfunction fulfilled and the harms of a ‘diagnosis’ will outweigh any potential benefits. At that point informing the patient becomes harmful and should arguably only be done if the patient explicitly requests the information.Rather than having a full discussion of the pros and cons of a pre-diabetes label with each patient we would advocate a ‘see-saw’ model of paternalist considerations.

Younger fitter patients are automatically informed of their pre-diabetes whether or not they have requested the information explicitly while those who are very elderly propecia and erectile dysfunction and have comorbidities and a limited life expectancy are not informed. In the middle is the group propecia and erectile dysfunction of patients for whom paternalism either way is not appropriate because the benefits and harms of a ‘diagnosis’ are uncertain. These patients in the middle of the see-saw are those for whom an in-depth discussion about the relevance and meaning of ‘pre-diabetes’ to them as an individual needs to take place, and also those patients where the blood test most strongly ought to have been discussed before it was performed.It could be argued that a drawback to this approach is the effect that it may have on patient–physician trust. In modern medicine patients are frequently seen by propecia and erectile dysfunction multiple clinicians. Clinician one may choose, quite ethically, not to reveal to a patient that they are pre-diabetic.

The patient may then see propecia and erectile dysfunction clinician two who tells them. This could then create a situation where the patient loses trust in clinician one and, indeed, the whole medical profession. However, pre-diabetes is not a disease state propecia and erectile dysfunction. The non-disclosure of pre-diabetes is markedly different to the non-disclosure of a disease. If the patient understands that clinician one did not disclose to them because pre-diabetes is a risk factor that is not relevant to them, and not a propecia and erectile dysfunction disease, then, hopefully, there would be no loss of trust.

In primary care in the UK, there is frequently non-disclosure of other ‘pre’ conditions, such as chronic kidney disease.21 This non-disclosure takes place where the condition is of relevance to the patient and full disclosure would, generally, be in the best interest of the patient. This is propecia and erectile dysfunction ethically and professionally problematic. However, the response of patients who find out about non-disclosure in these propecia and erectile dysfunction cases is of interest. When interviewed, the response of patients to finding out about these non-disclosures is nuanced and varied.21 It does need lead to automatic loss of trust in the medical profession.Wider use of this approach?. The purpose of the paper is to outline principles that could be applied, in an propecia and erectile dysfunction ethical manner to an unexpected blood test result of pre-diabetes.

In theory, the principles outlined could be more widely applicable in other pre-conditions and other risk factors. To be applicable, a condition must have a fairly predictable trajectory, have a point where ‘pre-disease’ becomes ‘actual disease’ and be potentially reversible (or propecia and erectile dysfunction delayable). The principles could possibly be applied to early chronic kidney disease or early hypertension but may not be appropriate for other conditions or risk factors. The difficulty in other conditions is predicting whether a patient is going to convert from a pre-condition to a disease state, predicting when they are going to convert and predicting propecia and erectile dysfunction whether this is going to cause harm. In these cases, where there is doubt, this should always be discussed fully with the patient.ConclusionWe have outlined a pragmatic ethical approach that can be used to guide a clinician when deciding how to manage an unexpected pre-diabetic blood result in an elderly patient.

We argue that, while patients should have propecia and erectile dysfunction full access to all information and test results, pre-diabetes is a risk state, not a disease, and is only of relevance to patients that fulfil certain criteria. While the individual characteristics of each patient should always be considered, in general, those patients that do not fulfil these criteria should not be burdened or potentially harmed by being labelled. Where there is any propecia and erectile dysfunction doubt about the harms and benefits of a pre-diabetes label, full disclosure and open discussion should take place with the patient. This will help avoid a situation where trust in the medical profession is eroded when a patient finds out at a later date that they ‘had pre-diabetes’ and were not informed.Data availability statementThere are no data in this work.Ethics statementsPatient consent for publicationNot required..

Lord Scarman’s judgment about when someone under the age of 16 years should have the right to make Where can i buy diflucan over the counter their own medical decisions emphasised the decision-making abilities of the generic propecia price particular child. He said:…the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of 16 will have medical treatment terminates if generic propecia price and when the child achieves a sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to understand fully what is proposed (p188–189).1That created a duty on healthcare practitioners to assess whether a particular minor has decision-making abilities at a degree that would enable them to understand the decision to a high extent, sufficient hopefully that they would ‘own’ the decision. In December of 2020, the High Court considered whether young people with gender dysphoria (GD) and seeking access to puberty blocking (PB) therapy, were likely to pass Scarman’s mature minor test and cast doubt on their ability to fully understand that decision, thereby making it less likely that a healthcare practitioner would decide they are a mature minor for that therapy. The High Court said:It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to generic propecia price give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers (p151).2Since then, the Journal of Medical Ethics has published papers about the ethical issues raised by that judgment.

Beattie, writing at the time the judgment was made, disagreed with the High Court and claimed that the decision to take puberty blockers is no more complex than many of the other generic propecia price medical decisions that minors are assessed as being competent to make.3 Central to the High Court’s decision was the claim that the decision to start PB therapy (the first stage of therapy for GD) is inextricably linked to the more permanent and significant, cross-sex hormone (CSH) therapy. That meant the abilities required to fully understand what was proposed became very demanding because they would require someone who had not yet gone through puberty to know what a second round of treatment, that would result in permanent and complex changes, would mean for them. Beattie objects to that claim for several reasons including that ‘…high progression rates to CSH may merely represent successful identification of persistent GD, rather than PBs promoting persistence’ (p4).Giordano et al consider the possibility that consenting to PB might be more generic propecia price complex than other treatments a minor might consent to.4 They point out that many other medical decisions are similarly complex and emotionally involving, so PB should not be viewed differently from other decisions a minor might take.The High Court’s judgment was recently overturned by the Court of Appeal who criticised the judgment on a number of grounds, including the implications that it would have for those seeking therapy for GD.Moreover, the effect of the guidance was to require applications to the court in circumstances where the Divisional Court itself had recognised that there was no legal obligation to do so. It placed patients, parents and clinicians in a very difficult position. In practice the guidance would have the effect of denying treatment in many circumstances for want of resources to make such an application generic propecia price coupled with inevitable delay through court involvement (p86).5While some might read that as an ethical point about access to therapy, the Court of Appeal is making a legal point about when it is appropriate for the court to become involved and the costs of them doing so.

That kind of concern continues where they object to the court making age-based recommendations about the likely ability of young people to consent.We conclude that it was inappropriate for the Divisional Court to give the guidance concerning when a court application will be appropriate and to reach general age-related conclusions about the likelihood or probability of different cohorts of children being capable of giving consent (p89).5Predictably, the Court of Appeal judgment has been hailed as ‘a positive step forwards for trans rights in the UK and around the world’.6 It is important to be clear, though, about exactly what was and what was not an issue here. The court was careful not to take a position on generic propecia price the debate about PBs. It recognised that generic propecia price this is an ongoing controversy. €˜The present proceedings do not require the courts to determine whether the treatment for GD is a wise or unwise course’.5Furthermore, there is nothing in the judgment about how often minors seeking access to PBs will be assessed as competent to make that decision, nor about what they will need to demonstrate in order to show that competence.As we have already said, the principle enunciated in Gillick was that it was for clinicians rather than the court to decide on competence (p87).5The point is precisely that it is not appropriate for courts to involve themselves in such matters. It will be for clinicians to generic propecia price make that determination.

There is nothing inherent to the nature of PBs that set them apart from other healthcare decisions, nothing that justifies the court intruding on what is a well-recognised area of clinical expertise.Certainly, it is not for the court to require that young people accept as matters of fact propositions that are currently factually contested or complex, such as the claim that PBs almost always serve as precursors to ‘much greater medical interventions’. And it is not for the court generic propecia price to issue guidance, in general terms, about when capacity assessments should require judicial intervention.There was a recognition here that this is a ‘difficult and controversial area’, where facts are contested and deep-seated values set in conflict. But as the court acknowledged, the concept of ‘Gillick competence’ arose in a context where that could also have been said of the provision of contraceptives to minors. Generalisations about capacity assessment were no more appropriate here than they generic propecia price were back in that earlier context.Ethics statementsPatient consent for publicationNot required.IntroductionIn the last decade there has been a marked increase in patients labelled with pre-diabetes in the UK.1 The ‘diagnosis’ of pre-diabetes is made on the basis of a patient having one or more markers of abnormal blood glucose. Levels are higher than normal but have not reached the threshold where the patient gets diagnosed as diabetic.

Patients with blood sugar levels generic propecia price in a pre-diabetic range are asymptomatic and disease free. The rationale behind labelling patients as pre-diabetic is that patients with pre-diabetes are at higher risk of going on to develop type 2 diabetes.2 Type 2 diabetes can cause significant mortality and morbidity.3 There is evidence that lifestyle change (altered diet and increased physical activity) in patients with pre-diabetes can prevent progression to diabetes.4 Although patients may be labelled as ‘pre-diabetic’, and this might look like a diagnosis of a pathological condition, pre-diabetes is a risk factor for the development of diabetes, not a disease in its own right.5Pre-diabetes is highly prevalent in Western countries. Its prevalence rises with age, and by age 75 years nearly 50% of the population in the USA is classified as pre-diabetic or diabetic.6 7 generic propecia price However, not all patients with pre-diabetes will develop diabetes. The risk of a person with pre-diabetes progressing to generic propecia price diabetes within 12 months is between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20.8 This annual conversion rate drops even lower as patients age.9 A 12-year follow-up of older adults with pre-diabetes, showed most remained stable or reverted to normal blood sugar levels, whereas only one‐third developed diabetes or died.10If a person develops diabetes, they do not automatically develop symptoms or complications. Complications, such as retinopathy and renal disease, develop over time and are more likely to occur the longer a patient has suffered with diabetes.11 Therefore, if a patient is approaching the end of their life, developing type 2 diabetes may have no direct impact on their health or quality of life.In order for a patient to eventually benefit from the label of pre-diabetes they must fulfil three criteria.

They must:Be in the group of patients that are going to convert from pre-diabetes to diabetes.Be in generic propecia price the group of patients that are going to develop symptoms or complications of diabetes.Be in the group of patients for whom lifestyle changes or medication can prevent the conversion from pre-diabetes to diabetes.If a patient does not belong to all three of these groups then labelling them as pre-diabetic will not confer any benefit to them. As conversion rates from pre-diabetes to diabetes reduce as a person ages and shortening life expectancy (which inevitably comes with ageing) reduces the risk of developing complications from diabetes, there is going to be a point in any patient’s life, even assuming that lifestyle changes could prevent progression to diabetes, where a patient will not benefit from knowing they have pre-diabetes. Calculating the exact age at which that will occur for an individual patient is problematic but certain general principles can be established to help clinicians decide on the benefit of labelling.This paper explores the pros and cons of a pre-diabetes label and a pragmatic ethical approach that could generic propecia price be taken by clinicians when faced with a new unanticipated pre-diabetic blood result that has been discovered through ‘routine’ blood tests.What are the harms of a pre-diabetes label?. The treatment for pre-diabetes is, in essence, adopting a healthier diet and taking more exercise. If adopted and maintained, these lifestyle changes are likely to benefit most patients in multiple aspects of health, generic propecia price not just their risk of developing diabetes.

However, although they may slightly delay the point at which a patient develops diabetes, studies of lifestyle-based diabetes prevention programmes show that most patients do not or cannot maintain long-term lifestyle changes.5 12 Weight loss is generally short term or minimal and patients usually slip back into old habits and routines. While there is undoubtedly an argument for informing younger patients who may receive a benefit from knowing they have pre-diabetes, the harms of informing increase with age.Many elderly patients with comorbidities may struggle to generic propecia price increase physical activity. Dietary change and attempts to lose weight after a certain age can have detrimental health effects13 Labelling somebody as having a medical condition carries a psychological burden in itself, and being unable to engage in the behaviour change recommended may also have negative consequences, that is, engendering a feeling of being ‘a failure’.14–16 If the label leads to further follow-up this may also place a burden on patients. There are also considerable implications for the use of health resources if the labelling of individuals generic propecia price as pre-diabetic requires further follow-up and intervention. Annual blood tests are standard (£6.42), subsequent general practitioner (GP) or nurse (£30) appointments to discuss results frequently take place as do referrals on to the national Diabetes Prevention Programme (£270).17 There are roughly 3 million people in the UK aged 80 years or over.18 If one-third of them have pre-diabetes and, of those, half have an annual blood test, a quarter have a GP appointment and one in eight get referred to the National generic propecia price Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme that is an annual cost of around £37 million.What is ideal practice and what is the reality?.

While some patients may have been tested following screening for being at risk of diabetes, in the UK most patients in whom pre-diabetes is diagnosed have blood sugar level tests carried out as part of a battery of other blood tests that are performed as part of annual chronic disease monitoring for conditions such as hypertension.19 The contents of the battery are determined by individual practices and usually based on guidance and payment targets issued by the NHS.20 In theory, a patient should give informed consent before any test, including blood sugar and HbA1c testing. In reality many patients who are given a diagnosis of pre-diabetes are unaware that they had blood tests generic propecia price for diabetes/pre-diabetes.19 When checking blood glucose or HbA1c in an elderly patient, especially one without symptoms of diabetes, the clinician should talk through with them the potential outcomes of the test and the implications this may have to them. The patient can then make an informed decision as to whether they want to go ahead with testing or not. In routine clinical practice in the UK this happens rarely, if at all generic propecia price. This is likely due to the volume of blood testing, the automated nature of the process, the limited time a clinician has to devote to each individual patient and the priority that individual clinicians assign to such conversations.As we discussed in a recent paper a more individualised approach to ‘routine’ blood tests needs to be taken.19 The utility of each test should be gauged for each patient as an individual, not as the average patient that has a particular disease.

The reality, however, is that this change will, at best, be generic propecia price adopted slowly or, at worst, not at all. What then, should clinicians who are presented with a pre-diabetic blood result in an elderly patient do?. The see-saw model of paternalismWhen faced with a series of test results for a patient, clinicians exercise judgement about what they consider ‘normal’ or generic propecia price ‘satisfactory’. They also exercise judgement in what they communicate to the patient about the results. In certain circumstances a patient may, for instance, have generic propecia price a mildly raised bilirubin or mildly decreased albumin and the clinician may file the result as ‘satisfactory’ and not inform the patient.

Is this an act of paternalism or is it the act of a clinician filtering out the ‘noise’ that is generated from carrying out tests and using an individual patient’s circumstances to contextualise what is ‘normal’? generic propecia price. Should clinicians, therefore, assume that all new pre-diabetic blood results above a certain age should not be disclosed to patients?. This is obviously an generic propecia price indefensible position as a general policy since patients have a right to information that concerns their health. However, while the blood result may be a factual piece of data, the labelling of a result as ‘satisfactory’, ‘acceptable’ or ‘abnormal’ is a clinical judgement. There is, in most circumstances, a moral obligation on the clinician to disclose to a patient that they are suffering with a generic propecia price disease.

Pre-diabetes is not a disease and unless a patient fulfils the three criteria set out in the introduction to this paper the information is not likely to benefit the patient.In younger patients, where the criteria related to a significant likelihood of progressing to diabetes with negative health effects are likely to be fulfilled, there is an onus on the clinician to inform patients they have pre-diabetes. In many younger patients it will be generic propecia price difficult to judge whether they fulfil the third criterion and can successfully change their lifestyle. In these cases the likely benefits of ‘diagnosis’ outweigh any potential drawback. However, as a patient ages and develops certain other comorbidities, a tipping point is reached where the criteria are very generic propecia price unlikely to be fulfilled and the harms of a ‘diagnosis’ will outweigh any potential benefits. At that point informing the patient becomes harmful and should arguably only be done if the patient explicitly requests the information.Rather than having a full discussion of the pros and cons of a pre-diabetes label with each patient we would advocate a ‘see-saw’ model of paternalist considerations.

Younger fitter patients are automatically informed of their pre-diabetes whether or not they have requested the information explicitly while generic propecia price those who are very elderly and have comorbidities and a limited life expectancy are not informed. In the middle is the group of patients for whom paternalism either way is not appropriate because the benefits and harms of a generic propecia price ‘diagnosis’ are uncertain. These patients in the middle of the see-saw are those for whom an in-depth discussion about the relevance and meaning of ‘pre-diabetes’ to them as an individual needs to take place, and also those patients where the blood test most strongly ought to have been discussed before it was performed.It could be argued that a drawback to this approach is the effect that it may have on patient–physician trust. In modern medicine patients are frequently seen by generic propecia price multiple clinicians. Clinician one may choose, quite ethically, not to reveal to a patient that they are pre-diabetic.

The patient may then generic propecia price see clinician two who tells them. This could then create a situation where the patient loses trust in clinician one and, indeed, the whole medical profession. However, pre-diabetes is not generic propecia price a disease state. The non-disclosure of pre-diabetes is markedly different to the non-disclosure of a disease. If the patient understands that clinician one did not disclose to them because pre-diabetes is a risk factor that is not relevant to them, and not a disease, then, hopefully, there would be generic propecia price no loss of trust.

In primary care in the UK, there is frequently non-disclosure of other ‘pre’ conditions, such as chronic kidney disease.21 This non-disclosure takes place where the condition is of relevance to the patient and full disclosure would, generally, be in the best interest of the patient. This is ethically generic propecia price and professionally problematic. However, the response of patients who find out about non-disclosure in these cases generic propecia price is of interest. When interviewed, the response of patients to finding out about these non-disclosures is nuanced and varied.21 It does need lead to automatic loss of trust in the medical profession.Wider use of this approach?. The purpose of the paper is generic propecia price to outline principles that could be applied, in an ethical manner to an unexpected blood test result of pre-diabetes.

In theory, the principles outlined could be more widely applicable in other pre-conditions and other risk factors. To be applicable, a generic propecia price condition must have a fairly predictable trajectory, have a point where ‘pre-disease’ becomes ‘actual disease’ and be potentially reversible (or delayable). The principles could possibly be applied to early chronic kidney disease or early hypertension but may not be appropriate for other conditions or risk factors. The difficulty in other conditions is predicting whether a patient is going to convert generic propecia price from a pre-condition to a disease state, predicting when they are going to convert and predicting whether this is going to cause harm. In these cases, where there is doubt, this should always be discussed fully with the patient.ConclusionWe have outlined a pragmatic ethical approach that can be used to guide a clinician when deciding how to manage an unexpected pre-diabetic blood result in an elderly patient.

We argue that, while patients should have full access to all information and test results, pre-diabetes is a risk state, not a disease, and is only generic propecia price of relevance to patients that fulfil certain criteria. While the individual characteristics of each patient should always be considered, in general, those patients that do not fulfil these criteria should not be burdened or potentially harmed by being labelled. Where there is any doubt about the generic propecia price harms and benefits of a pre-diabetes label, full disclosure and open discussion should take place with the patient. This will help avoid a situation where trust in the medical profession is eroded when a patient finds out at a later date that they ‘had pre-diabetes’ and were not informed.Data availability statementThere are no data in this work.Ethics statementsPatient consent for publicationNot required..

How to get prescribed propecia

Start Preamble Federal how to get prescribed propecia Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. Notice of funding opportunity. The hair loss Disease 2019 how to get prescribed propecia (hair loss treatment) public health emergency Start Printed Page 63654has had a significant impact on transit operations.

During a series of FTA listening sessions held over the last three months, transit agencies asked FTA to support research to identify solutions to address the operational challenges that they are facing as a result of hair loss treatment. In response, FTA makes available through this Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) funding to support research demonstration grants to public transit agencies to develop, deploy, and demonstrate innovative solutions that improve the operational efficiency of transit agencies, as well as enhance the mobility of transit users affected by the hair loss treatment public health emergency. Demonstration grants under this NOFO are authorized how to get prescribed propecia under FTA's Public Transportation Innovation Program (49 U.S.C.

5312). Eligible projects will demonstrate innovative solutions to improve the operational efficiencies of transit systems and enhance mobility for their communities in four major areas. (1) Vehicle, facility, equipment and infrastructure cleaning and how to get prescribed propecia dis.

(2) exposure mitigation measures. (3) innovative mobility such as contactless payments. And (4) measures that strengthen how to get prescribed propecia public confidence in transit services.

The total funding available for awards under this NOFO is $10,000,000. FTA may supplement this amount if additional funding becomes how to get prescribed propecia available. Applicants must submit completed proposals for funding opportunity FTA-2020-015-TRI through the GRANTS.GOV “APPLY” function by 11:59 p.m.

Eastern Time on November 2, 2020. Prospective applicants should register as soon as possible on the GRANTS.GOV website to ensure how to get prescribed propecia they can complete the application process before the submission deadline. Application instructions are available on FTA's website at http://transit.dot.gov/​howtoapply and in the “FIND” module of GRANTS.GOV.

FTA will not accept mail and fax submissions. Start Further Info Please how to get prescribed propecia send any questions on this notice to Jamel El-Hamri email. Jamel.El-Hamri@dot.gov phone.

2020-366-8985. A Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) is available for individuals who are deaf or hard how to get prescribed propecia of hearing at 1-800-877-8339. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information Table of Contents A.

Program Description B. Federal Award Information C how to get prescribed propecia. Eligibility Information D.

Application and Submission Information E how to get prescribed propecia. Application Review Information F. Federal Award Administration Information G.

Federal Awarding Agency Contact how to get prescribed propecia Information A. Program Description The Public Transportation hair loss treatment Research Demonstration Grant Program is funded through the Public Transportation Innovation Program (49 U.S.C. 5312), with the goal to develop, deploy, and demonstrate innovative solutions that improve the operational efficiency of transit agencies, as well as enhance the mobility of transit users affected by the hair loss treatment public health emergency.

Eligible projects will propose how to get prescribed propecia to develop and deploy innovative solutions in four major areas. (1) Vehicle, facility, equipment and infrastructure cleaning and dis. (2) exposure mitigation measures.

(3) innovative mobility such as contactless payments how to get prescribed propecia. And (4) measures that strengthen public confidence in transit. As required how to get prescribed propecia by 49 U.S.C.

5312(e)(4), projects funded under this NOFO must participate in an evaluation by an independent outside entity that will conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the success or failure of the projects funded under this subsection and any plan for broad-based implementation of the innovation promoted by successful projects. B. Federal Award Information FTA makes available $10,000,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2020 funds under the how to get prescribed propecia Public Transportation Innovation Program (49 U.S.C.

5312) to finance the Public Transportation hair loss treatment Research Demonstration Grant Program. FTA may supplement the total funds available if additional funding becomes available at the time project selections are made. FTA will grant pre-award authority starting on the date of the project award announcement for how to get prescribed propecia selected projects and should be completed within 24 months from the date of award.

Funds are available only for eligible expenses incurred after the announcement of project selections. C. Eligibility Information (1) Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants include State and local governmental authorities, direct recipients of Urbanized Area (49 U.S.C how to get prescribed propecia.

5307) and Rural Area (49 U.S.C. 5311) formula funds, and Indian tribes. Eligible applicants how to get prescribed propecia are limited to FTA grantees or subrecipients who would be the primary beneficiaries of the innovative products and services that are developed—typically public transit agencies.

Except for projects proposed by Indian tribes, proposals for projects in rural (non-urbanized) areas must be submitted as part of a consolidated State proposal. States and other eligible applicants also may submit consolidated how to get prescribed propecia proposals for projects in urbanized areas. The submission of the Statewide application will not preclude the submission and consideration of any application from other eligible recipients in an urbanized area in a State.

Proposals may contain projects to be implemented by the recipient or its subrecipients. Eligible subrecipients include public agencies, private nonprofit organizations, and private providers how to get prescribed propecia engaged in public transportation. Eligible applicants may submit consolidated proposals for projects.

(2) Cost Sharing or Matching The maximum Federal share of project costs is 100 percent. FTA may give additional consideration to applicants that propose a how to get prescribed propecia local share and may view these applicants as more competitive. The applicant must document the source(s) of the local match, if any, in the grant application.

For any applicants proposing match, eligible local match sources include the following. Cash from non-Government sources other than revenues from providing public transportation services how to get prescribed propecia. Revenues derived from the sale of advertising and concessions.

Revenues generated from value capture financing mechanisms. Funds from how to get prescribed propecia an undistributed cash surplus. Replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve.

New capital how to get prescribed propecia. Or in-kind contributions. (3) Eligible Projects Eligible projects will propose innovative solutions to improve operational efficiencies of transit agencies and enhance the mobility of transit users, through projects that demonstrate innovative solutions for.

Vehicle, facility, equipment and how to get prescribed propecia infrastructure cleaning and dis. Exposure mitigation measures such a real-time notification of rail and bus passenger loads. New multi-modal payment innovative mobility systems such as contactless payments.

And measures how to get prescribed propecia that strengthen public confidence in transit. Each applicant may only submit one proposal.Start Printed Page 63655 D. Application and Submission Information (1) Address and Form of Application Submission Applications must be submitted through GRANTS.GOV.

Applicants can find general information for submitting applications through GRANTS.GOV at www.fta.dot.gov/​howtoapply, along with specific instructions for the forms and attachments required for how to get prescribed propecia submission. Mail and fax submissions will not be accepted. (2) Content and Form of Application Submission a.

Proposal Submission A complete proposal submission how to get prescribed propecia consists of at least two forms. 1. The SF-424 Mandatory Form (downloadable from GRANTS.GOV) and 2 how to get prescribed propecia.

The supplemental form for the FY 2020 hair loss treatment Demonstration Program (downloadable from GRANTS.GOV), which is available on FTA's website at (placeholder for FTA hair loss treatment Demonstration Program). The application must include responses to all sections of the SF-424 mandatory form and the supplemental form unless a section is indicated as optional. FTA will use the information on the supplemental form to determine applicant and project eligibility for the program and to evaluate the proposal against the selection criteria described in part E of how to get prescribed propecia this notice.

FTA will accept only one supplemental form per SF-424 submission. FTA encourages applicants to consider submitting a single supplemental form that includes multiple activities to be evaluated as a consolidated proposal. Applicants may attach additional supporting information to the SF-424 submission, including how to get prescribed propecia but not limited to letters of support, project budgets, or excerpts from relevant planning documents.

Supporting documentation must be described and referenced by file name in the appropriate response section of the supplemental form, or it may not be reviewed. Information such as applicant name, Federal amount requested, local match amount, description of areas served, etc., may be requested in varying degrees of detail on both the SF-424 form and supplemental form. Applicants must how to get prescribed propecia fill in all fields unless stated otherwise on the forms.

If applicants copy information into the supplemental form from another source, they should verify that the supplemental form has fully captured pasted text and that it has not truncated the text due to character limits built into the form. Applicants should use both the “Check Package for Errors” and the “Validate how to get prescribed propecia Form” validation buttons on both forms to check all required fields. Applicants should also ensure that the Federal and local amounts specified are consistent.

Addressing the deteriorating conditions and disproportionately high fatality rates on our rural transportation infrastructure is of critical interest to the Department, as rural transportation networks face unique challenges in safety, infrastructure condition, and passenger and freight usage. Consistent with how to get prescribed propecia the R.O.U.T.E.S. Initiative, the Department encourages applicants to consider how the project will address the challenges faced by rural areas.

B. Application Content how to get prescribed propecia The SF-424 Mandatory Form and the supplemental form will prompt applicants for the required information, including. I.

Applicant Name ii. Dun and how to get prescribed propecia Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number iii. Key contact information (contact name, address, email address, and phone number) iv.

Congressional district(s) where project will take place v. Project Information (title, executive summary, how to get prescribed propecia and type) vi. A detailed description of the need for the project vii.

A detailed how to get prescribed propecia description of how the project will support the Program objectives viii. Evidence that the applicant can provide the local cost shares ix. A description of the technical, legal, and financial capacity of the applicant x.

A detailed project budget how to get prescribed propecia xi. Details on the local matching funds xii. A detailed project timeline xiii.

Whether the project impacts an Opportunity Zone (3) Unique Entity how to get prescribed propecia Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM) Each applicant is required to. (1) Be registered in SAM before submitting an application. (2) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its application.

And (3) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the applicant has an active Federal award or an application or plan how to get prescribed propecia under consideration by FTA. These requirements do not apply if the applicant. (1) Is excepted from the requirements under 2 CFR 25.110(b) or (c).

Or (2) has an exception approved by FTA under 2 CFR 25.110(d) how to get prescribed propecia. FTA may not make an award until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time FTA is ready to make an award, FTA may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive an award and use that determination how to get prescribed propecia as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.

All applicants must provide a unique entity identifier provided by SAM. Registration in SAM may take as little as 3-5 business days, but there can be unexpected steps or delays. For example, the applicant may need to how to get prescribed propecia obtain an Employer Identification Number.

FTA recommends allowing ample time, up to several weeks, to complete all steps. For additional information on obtaining a unique entity identifier, please visit www.sam.gov. (4) Submission Dates and Times Project proposals must be submitted electronically through GRANTS.GOV by 11:59 how to get prescribed propecia p.m.

Eastern on November 2, 2020. Mail and fax submissions will not be accepted. FTA urges applicants to submit applications at least 72 hours prior to the due date to allow time to how to get prescribed propecia correct any problems that may have caused either GRANTS.GOV or FTA systems to reject the submission.

Proposals submitted after the deadline will only be considered under extraordinary circumstances not within the applicant's control. Deadlines will not be how to get prescribed propecia extended due to scheduled website maintenance. GRANTS.GOV scheduled maintenance and outage times are announced on the GRANTS.GOV website.

Within 48 hours after submitting an electronic application, the applicant should receive two email messages from GRANTS.GOV. (1) Confirmation how to get prescribed propecia of successful transmission to GRANTS.GOV. And (2) confirmation of successful validation by GRANTS.GOV.

If the applicant does not receive confirmation of successful validation or receives a notice of failed validation or incomplete materials, the applicant must address the reason for the failed validation, as described in the email notice, and resubmit before the submission deadline. If making a resubmission for any reason, applicants must include all original attachments regardless of which attachments were updated and how to get prescribed propecia check the box on the supplemental form indicating this is a resubmission. Applicants are encouraged to begin the process of registration on the GRANTS.GOV site well in advance of the submission deadline.

Registration is Start Printed Page 63656a multi-step process, which may take several weeks to complete before an application can be submitted. Registered applicants may still be required to update their registration before submitting an application how to get prescribed propecia. Registration in SAM is renewed annually and persons making submissions on behalf of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) must be authorized in GRANTS.GOV by the AOR to make submissions.

(5) Funding Restrictions Funds may be used for post-award expenditures only. Funds under how to get prescribed propecia this NOFO cannot be used to reimburse projects for otherwise eligible expenses incurred prior to the date of project award announcements. (6) Other Submission Requirements FTA encourages applicants to identify scaled funding options in case insufficient funding is available to fund a project at the full requested amount.

If an applicant indicates that a project is scalable, the applicant must provide an appropriate minimum funding amount that will how to get prescribed propecia fund an eligible project that achieves the objectives of the program and meets all relevant program requirements. The applicant must provide a clear explanation of how a reduced award would affect the project budget and scope. FTA may award a lesser amount whether or not the applicant provides a scalable option.

E. Application Review Information (1) Project Evaluation Criteria Addressing the deteriorating conditions and disproportionately high fatality rates on our rural transportation infrastructure is of critical interest to the Department, as rural transportation networks face unique challenges in safety, infrastructure condition, and passenger and freight usage. Consistent with the R.O.U.T.E.S.

Initiative, the Department will consider how the project will address the challenges faced by rural areas. In addition, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this Notice in accordance with the President's September 2, 2020 memorandum, entitled Memorandum on Reviewing Funding to State and Local Government Recipients of Federal Funds that Are Permitting Anarchy, Violence, and Destruction in American Cities, consistent with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Attorney General and with all applicable laws. FTA will evaluate proposals submitted according to the following criteria.

(a) Project Innovation and Impact. (b) Project Approach. (c) National Applicability.

(d) Commercialization and/or Knowledge Transfer. And (e) Technical, Legal and Financial Capacity. FTA encourages each applicant to demonstrate how a project supports all criteria with the most relevant information the applicant can provide, regardless of whether such information has been specifically requested or identified in this notice.

A. Project Innovation and Impact i. Effectiveness of the project in achieving and demonstrating the specific objectives of this program.

Ii. Demonstration of benefits in addressing the needs of the transit agency and industry and impacts to infrastructure, equipment, transit workforce, and riders. Iii.

Degree of improvement over current and existing technologies, designs, and/or practices applicable to the transit industry. B. Project Approach i.

Quality of the project approach such as existing partnerships, collaboration strategies and level of commitment of the project partners. Ii. Proposal is realistic in its approach to fulfill the milestones/deliverables, schedule and goals.

C. National Applicability i. Degree to which the project could be replicated by other transit agencies regionally or nationally.

Ii. Ability to evaluate technologies, designs and/or practices in a wide variety of conditions and locales. Iii.

Degree to which the technology, designs and/or practices can be replicated by other transportation modes. D. Commercialization and/or Knowledge Transfer i.

Demonstrates a realistic plan for moving the results of the project into the transit marketplace (patents, conferences, articles in trade magazines, webinar, site visits, etc.). Ii. How the project team plans to work with the industry on improving best practices, guidance and/or standards, if applicable.

Iii. Demonstrate a clear understanding and robust approach to data collection, access and management. E.

Technical, Legal and Financial Capacity Capacity of the applicant and any partners to successfully execute the project effort. There should be no outstanding legal, technical, or financial issues with the applicant that would make this a high-risk project. (2) Review and Selection Process An FTA technical evaluation committee will evaluate proposals based on the published project evaluation criteria.

Members of the technical evaluation committee will rate the applications and may seek clarification about any statement in an application. The FTA Administrator will determine the final selection and amount of funding for each project after consideration of the findings of the technical evaluation committee. Geographic diversity, diversity of the project type, the amount of local match to be provided, and the applicant's receipt and management of other Federal transit funds may be considered in FTA's award decisions.

Prior fare payment innovation efforts may receive priority consideration. The FTA Administrator will consider the following key DOT objectives. A.

Utilizing alternative funding sources and innovative financing models to attract non-Federal sources of investment. B. Whether the project is located in or supports public transportation service in a qualified opportunity zone designated pursuant to 26.U.S.C.

1400Z-1. And c. The extent to which the project addresses challenges specific to the provision of rural public transportation.

(3) FAPIIS Review Prior to making a grant award, FTA is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) accessible through SAM. An applicant may review and comment on information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. FTA will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 2 CFR 200.205 Federal Awarding Agency Review of Risk Posed by Applicants.

F. Federal Award Administration Information (1) Federal Award Notices FTA will announce the final project selections on the FTA website. Project recipients should contact their FTA Regional Office for additional information regarding allocations for Start Printed Page 63657projects.

At the time project selections are announced, FTA will extend pre-award authority for the selected projects. There is no blanket pre-award authority for these projects before announcement. There is no minimum or maximum grant award amount, but FTA intends to fund as many meritorious projects as possible.

FTA only will consider proposals from eligible recipients for eligible activities. Due to funding limitations, projects selected for funding may receive less than the amount originally requested. In those cases, applicants must be able to demonstrate that the proposed projects are still viable and can be completed with the amount awarded.

(2) Administrative and National Policy Requirements a. Pre-Award Authority FTA will issue specific guidance to recipients regarding pre-award authority at the time of selection. FTA does not provide pre-award authority for competitive funds until projects are selected, and there are Federal requirements that must be met before costs are incurred.

For more information about FTA's policy on pre-award authority, see the FY 2020 Apportionments Notice published on June 3, 2020, at https://www.govinfo.gov/​content/​pkg/​FR-2020-06-03/​pdf/​2020-11946.pdf. b. Grant Requirements Selected applicants will submit a grant application through FTA's electronic grant management system and adhere to the customary FTA grant requirements for research project (insert Circular name).

All competitive grants, regardless of award amount, will be subject to the Congressional notification and release process. FTA emphasizes that third-party procurement applies to all funding awards, as described in FTA Circular 4220.1F, “Third Party Contracting Guidance.” However, FTA may approve applications that include a specifically identified partnering organization(s) (2 CFR 200.302(f)). When included, the application, budget, and budget narrative should provide a clear understanding of how the selection of these organizations is critical for the project and give sufficient detail about the costs involved.

C. Planning FTA encourages applicants to engage the appropriate State Departments of Transportation, Regional Transportation Planning Organizations, or Metropolitan Planning Organizations in areas to be served by the project funds available under this program. D.

Standard Assurances The applicant assures that it will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, FTA circulars, and other Federal administrative requirements in carrying out any project supported by the FTA grant. The applicant acknowledges that it is under a continuing obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement issued for its project with FTA. The applicant understands that Federal laws, regulations, policies, and administrative practices might be modified from time to time and may affect the implementation of the project.

The applicant agrees that the most recent Federal requirements will apply to the project unless FTA issues a written determination otherwise. The applicant must submit the Certifications and Assurances before receiving a grant if it does not have current certifications on file. E.

Free Speech and Religious Liberty In connection with any program or activity conducted with or benefiting from funds awarded under this notice, recipients of funds must comply with all applicable requirements of Federal law, including, without limitation, the Constitution of the United States. Statutory, regulatory, and public policy requirements, including without limitation, those protecting free speech, religious liberty, public welfare, the environment, and prohibiting discrimination. The conditions of performance, non-discrimination requirements, and other assurances made applicable to the award of funds in accordance with regulations of the Department of Transportation.

And applicable Federal financial assistance and contracting principles promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget. In complying with these requirements, recipients must ensure that no concession agreements are denied or other contracting decisions made on the basis of speech or other activities protected by the First Amendment. If the Department determines that a recipient has failed to comply with applicable Federal requirements, the Department may terminate the award of funds and disallow previously incurred costs, requiring the recipient to reimburse any expended award funds.

(3) Reporting The post-award reporting requirements include submission of the Federal Financial Report (FFR) and Milestone Progress Report in TrAMS. An evaluation of the grant will occur at various points in the demonstration process and at the end of the project. In addition, FTA is responsible for producing an Annual Report to Congress that compiles evaluation of selected projects, including an evaluation of the performance measures identified by the applicants.

All applicants must develop an evaluation plan to measure the success or failure of their projects and describe any plans for broad-based implementation of successful projects. FTA may request data and reports to support the evaluation and Annual Report. A.

Independent Evaluation To achieve a comprehensive understanding of the impacts and implications of each proposed hair loss treatment Research Demonstration Program, projects funded under this announcement will require the recipient to conduct a third party independent evaluation of their project. Recipients will be required to contract with a third party independent evaluator to assist in developing an evaluation plan, and collecting, storing and managing data required to fulfill the evaluation requirement. No more than 10 percent of the Federal share of the project may be used to hire the third-party independent evaluator and the inclusion of a third-party independent evaluation should be described in the grant application.

If the project duration is more than two years, an interim evaluation report would need to be submitted to FTA, otherwise the evaluation report should be included as part of the final project report. B. hair loss treatment Research Demonstration Grant Program Evaluation Projects funded under this announcement will be required to establish a set of performance metrics set by the third-party independent evaluator and shared with FTA.

G. Federal Awarding Agency Contacts Information For questions about applying, please contact Jamel El-Hamri email. Jamel.El-Hamri@dot.gov phone.

202-366-8985. A TDD is available at 1-800-877-8339 (TDDFIRS). To ensure that applicants receive accurate information about eligibility or the program, applicants are encouraged to contact FTA directly with questions, rather than through intermediaries or third parties.Start Printed Page 63658 FTA staff also may conduct briefings on the competitive grants selection and award process upon request.

Start Signature K. Jane Williams, Deputy Administrator. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc.

2020-22316 Filed 10-7-20. 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910-57-PStart Preamble Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services. Notice.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (OIDP) in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) announces the draft Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan. A Roadmap to Elimination (2021-2025) (Hepatitis Plan) available for public comment. The draft Hepatitis Plan may be reviewed at www.hhs.gov/​hepatitis.

All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. ET on October 8, 2020 to ensure consideration. All comments must be submitted electronically to HepatitisPlanComments@hhs.gov.

Start Further Info Carol Jimenez, OIDP, Carol.Jimenez@hhs.gov. 202-401-5131. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information Viral hepatitis is a significant public health threat that puts people who are infected at increased risk for serious disease and death.

In the United States, new hepatitis A and hepatitis C s have increased dramatically in recent years, little progress has been made on preventing hepatitis B s, and, as of 2016, an estimated 3.3 million people were chronically infected with hepatitis B and hepatitis C.1-3 Collectively, viral hepatitis costs people, health systems, states, and the federal government billions of dollars each year 4 5 and contributes to substantial health disparities, stigma, and discrimination. Reversing the rates of viral hepatitis, preventing new s, and improving care and treatment require a strategic and coordinated approach by federal partners in collaboration with state and local health departments, tribal communities, community-based organizations, and other nonfederal partners and stakeholders. To spur action to reduce new viral hepatitis s and their adverse public health impact, OASH through OIDP, in collaboration with federal partners throughout HHS and other departments, led and coordinated development of the Hepatitis Plan.

Opportunities for public input were provided, and public comments received were reviewed and analyzed and helped inform the components of the Hepatitis Plan. The Hepatitis Plan focuses on hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C—the hepatitis propeciaes that most significantly affect the health of the nation. It is an elimination plan, with the overarching goal of eliminating viral hepatitis as a public health threat in the United States by 2030.

The Hepatitis Plan is intended to serve as a roadmap for all stakeholders at all levels to eliminate hepatitis in this nation. The Hepatitis Plan presents a strategic framework for integrating and leveraging synergistic policies, programs, and resources. It sets forth a vision and five goals for the nation, with objectives and strategies for each goal.

The objectives and strategies offered in this plan are interrelated and may be used to make progress toward more than one goal. The Hepatitis Plan identifies disproportionately impacted populations based on national hepatitis incidence, prevalence, and mortality data, to help federal and other stakeholders focus their efforts to realize the greatest impact. The Hepatitis Plan also includes indicators to measure progress and quantitative targets for each indicator.

Although it is a 5-year plan, it sets 10-year quantitative targets for each indicator—reflecting the reality that it will take more than 5 years to eliminate viral hepatitis as a public health threat. The order in which the goals, objectives, strategies, and indicators are presented is not associated with any prioritization. The following are the Hepatitis Plan's vision and goals.

Vision. The United States will be a place where new viral hepatitis s are prevented, every person knows their status, and every person with viral hepatitis has high-quality health care and treatment and lives free from stigma and discrimination. This vision includes all people, regardless of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, geographic location, or socioeconomic circumstance.

Goals. 1. Prevent New Viral Hepatitis s 2.

Improve Viral Hepatitis—Related Health Outcomes of People with Viral Hepatitis 3. Reduce Viral Hepatitis—Related Disparities and Health Inequities 4. Improve Viral Hepatitis Surveillance and Data Usage 5.

Achieve Integrated, Coordinated Efforts That Address the Viral Hepatitis Epidemics among All Partners and Stakeholders A roadmap for stakeholders at all levels and sectors, the Hepatitis Plan envisions a whole-of-nation response to preventing and controlling viral hepatitis in the United States. The Hepatitis Plan assumes the active participation of state, local, and tribal health departments and organizations, health plans and health care providers, schools and other academic institutions, community- and faith-based organizations, scientists, researchers, and the public in this effort. The priority populations, indicators, and quantitative targets, especially the methods used to determine them, are intended to help focus efforts and limited resources to realize the most impact.

Stakeholders are encouraged to focus on activities that resonate the most with the needs of the populations they serve and services they provide, and, using the Hepatitis Plan as a framework, develop their own plans to eliminate viral hepatitis and improve the health of their communities, states, tribal nations, and the nation. Information Needs The draft Hepatitis Plan may be reviewed at. Www.hhs.gov/​hepatitis.

OIDP seeks to obtain feedback from external stakeholders on the following. 1. Do the draft plan's goals, objectives, and strategies appropriately address the viral hepatitis epidemics?.

2. Are there any critical gaps in the Hepatitis Plan's goals, objectives, and strategies?. If so, please specify the gaps.

3. Do any of the Hepatitis Plan's goals, objectives and strategies cause concern?. If so, please specify the goal, objective or strategy, and describe the concern regarding it.

Each commenter is limited to a maximum of seven pages. Start Authority 77 FR 15761 (March 16, 2012). End Authority Start Signature Dated.

September 22, 2020. B. Kaye Hayes, Acting Director, Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy.

End Signature Footnotes 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Viral Hepatitis Surveillance—Start Printed Page 60814United States, 2018.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020.

Accessed August 9, 2020. Https://www.cdc.gov/​hepatitis/​statistics/​2018surveillance/​index.htm. 2.

Hofmeister MG, Rosenthal EM, Barker LK, et al. Estimating prevalence of hepatitis C propecia in the United States, 2013-2016. Hepatology.

2019 Mar;69(3):1020-1031. Doi. 10.1002/hep.30297.

3. LeFevre ML. Screening for hepatitis B propecia in nonpregnant adolescents and adults.

US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Annals Internal Med. 2014;161(1):58-66.

4. Morey RJ, Collier MG, Nelson NP. The financial burden of public health responses to hepatitis A cases among food handlers, 2012-2014.

Public Health Rep. 2017;132(4):443-447. Doi:10.1177/0033354917710947.

5. Wittenborn J, Brady J, Dougherty M, Rein D. Potential epidemiologic, economic, and budgetary impacts of current rates of hepatitis C treatment in Medicare and non-Medicare populations.

Hepatol Commun. 2017;1(2):99-109. Doi:10.1002/hep4.1031.

End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2020-21288 Filed 9-25-20. 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4150-43-P.

Start Preamble Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT generic propecia price. Notice of funding opportunity. The hair loss generic propecia price Disease 2019 (hair loss treatment) public health emergency Start Printed Page 63654has had a significant impact on transit operations. During a series of FTA listening sessions held over the last three months, transit agencies asked FTA to support research to identify solutions to address the operational challenges that they are facing as a result of hair loss treatment. In response, FTA makes available through this Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) funding to support research demonstration grants to public transit agencies to develop, deploy, and demonstrate innovative solutions that improve the operational efficiency of transit agencies, as well as enhance the mobility of transit users affected by the hair loss treatment public health emergency.

Demonstration grants generic propecia price under this NOFO are authorized under FTA's Public Transportation Innovation Program (49 U.S.C. 5312). Eligible projects will demonstrate innovative solutions to improve the operational efficiencies of transit systems and enhance mobility for their communities in four major areas. (1) Vehicle, facility, equipment and infrastructure cleaning and dis generic propecia price. (2) exposure mitigation measures.

(3) innovative mobility such as contactless payments. And (4) generic propecia price measures that strengthen public confidence in transit services. The total funding available for awards under this NOFO is $10,000,000. FTA may supplement this amount if additional funding becomes generic propecia price available. Applicants must submit completed proposals for funding opportunity FTA-2020-015-TRI through the GRANTS.GOV “APPLY” function by 11:59 p.m.

Eastern Time on November 2, 2020. Prospective applicants should register as soon as possible on the GRANTS.GOV website to ensure they can complete the application process before the submission deadline generic propecia price. Application instructions are available on FTA's website at http://transit.dot.gov/​howtoapply and in the “FIND” module of GRANTS.GOV. FTA will not accept mail and fax submissions. Start Further Info Please send any questions generic propecia price on this notice to Jamel El-Hamri email.

Jamel.El-Hamri@dot.gov phone. 2020-366-8985. A Telecommunication Device for the generic propecia price Deaf (TDD) is available for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing at 1-800-877-8339. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information Table of Contents A. Program Description B.

Federal Award Information C generic propecia price. Eligibility Information D. Application and Submission Information E generic propecia price. Application Review Information F. Federal Award Administration Information G.

Federal Awarding Agency generic propecia price Contact Information A. Program Description The Public Transportation hair loss treatment Research Demonstration Grant Program is funded through the Public Transportation Innovation Program (49 U.S.C. 5312), with the goal to develop, deploy, and demonstrate innovative solutions that improve the operational efficiency of transit agencies, as well as enhance the mobility of transit users affected by the hair loss treatment public health emergency. Eligible projects will generic propecia price propose to develop and deploy innovative solutions in four major areas. (1) Vehicle, facility, equipment and infrastructure cleaning and dis.

(2) exposure mitigation measures. (3) innovative generic propecia price mobility such as contactless payments. And (4) measures that strengthen public confidence in transit. As required by generic propecia price 49 U.S.C. 5312(e)(4), projects funded under this NOFO must participate in an evaluation by an independent outside entity that will conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the success or failure of the projects funded under this subsection and any plan for broad-based implementation of the innovation promoted by successful projects.

B. Federal Award Information FTA makes available $10,000,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2020 funds under generic propecia price the Public Transportation Innovation Program (49 U.S.C. 5312) to finance the Public Transportation hair loss treatment Research Demonstration Grant Program. FTA may supplement the total funds available if additional funding becomes available at the time project selections are made. FTA will grant pre-award authority starting on the date of the project award announcement for selected projects and generic propecia price should be completed within 24 months from the date of award.

Funds are available only for eligible expenses incurred after the announcement of project selections. C. Eligibility Information (1) Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants include State and local governmental authorities, direct generic propecia price recipients of Urbanized Area (49 U.S.C. 5307) and Rural Area (49 U.S.C. 5311) formula funds, and Indian tribes.

Eligible applicants are limited to FTA grantees or subrecipients who would be the primary beneficiaries of the innovative generic propecia price products and services that are developed—typically public transit agencies. Except for projects proposed by Indian tribes, proposals for projects in rural (non-urbanized) areas must be submitted as part of a consolidated State proposal. States and other eligible applicants also may submit consolidated proposals for projects in generic propecia price urbanized areas. The submission of the Statewide application will not preclude the submission and consideration of any application from other eligible recipients in an urbanized area in a State. Proposals may contain projects to be implemented by the recipient or its subrecipients.

Eligible subrecipients include public agencies, private nonprofit organizations, and private providers generic propecia price engaged in public transportation. Eligible applicants may submit consolidated proposals for projects. (2) Cost Sharing or Matching The maximum Federal share of project costs is 100 percent. FTA may give additional consideration to applicants that propose a local share and may generic propecia price view these applicants as more competitive. The applicant must document the source(s) of the local match, if any, in the grant application.

For any applicants proposing match, eligible local match sources include the following. Cash from non-Government sources generic propecia price other than revenues from providing public transportation services. Revenues derived from the sale of advertising and concessions. Revenues generated from value capture financing mechanisms. Funds from an undistributed generic propecia price cash surplus.

Replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve. New capital generic propecia price. Or in-kind contributions. (3) Eligible Projects Eligible projects will propose innovative solutions to improve operational efficiencies of transit agencies and enhance the mobility of transit users, through projects that demonstrate innovative solutions for. Vehicle, facility, equipment generic propecia price and infrastructure cleaning and dis.

Exposure mitigation measures such a real-time notification of rail and bus passenger loads. New multi-modal payment innovative mobility systems such as contactless payments. And measures that strengthen generic propecia price public confidence in transit. Each applicant may only submit one proposal.Start Printed Page 63655 D. Application and Submission Information (1) Address and Form of Application Submission Applications must be submitted through GRANTS.GOV.

Applicants can find general information for submitting applications through generic propecia price GRANTS.GOV at www.fta.dot.gov/​howtoapply, along with specific instructions for the forms and attachments required for submission. Mail and fax submissions will not be accepted. (2) Content and Form of Application Submission a. Proposal Submission A complete generic propecia price proposal submission consists of at least two forms. 1.

The SF-424 generic propecia price Mandatory Form (downloadable from GRANTS.GOV) and 2. The supplemental form for the FY 2020 hair loss treatment Demonstration Program (downloadable from GRANTS.GOV), which is available on FTA's website at (placeholder for FTA hair loss treatment Demonstration Program). The application must include responses to all sections of the SF-424 mandatory form and the supplemental form unless a section is indicated as optional. FTA will use the information on the supplemental form to determine applicant generic propecia price and project eligibility for the program and to evaluate the proposal against the selection criteria described in part E of this notice. FTA will accept only one supplemental form per SF-424 submission.

FTA encourages applicants to consider submitting a single supplemental form that includes multiple activities to be evaluated as a consolidated proposal. Applicants may attach additional supporting information to the SF-424 submission, including but not limited to letters of support, generic propecia price project budgets, or excerpts from relevant planning documents. Supporting documentation must be described and referenced by file name in the appropriate response section of the supplemental form, or it may not be reviewed. Information such as applicant name, Federal amount requested, local match amount, description of areas served, etc., may be requested in varying degrees of detail on both the SF-424 form and supplemental form. Applicants must fill in generic propecia price all fields unless stated otherwise on the forms.

If applicants copy information into the supplemental form from another source, they should verify that the supplemental form has fully captured pasted text and that it has not truncated the text due to character limits built into the form. Applicants should use both the “Check Package for Errors” and the “Validate Form” validation buttons on both forms to check all required fields generic propecia price. Applicants should also ensure that the Federal and local amounts specified are consistent. Addressing the deteriorating conditions and disproportionately high fatality rates on our rural transportation infrastructure is of critical interest to the Department, as rural transportation networks face unique challenges in safety, infrastructure condition, and passenger and freight usage. Consistent with generic propecia price the R.O.U.T.E.S.

Initiative, the Department encourages applicants to consider how the project will address the challenges faced by rural areas. B. Application Content The SF-424 Mandatory Form and the supplemental form will prompt applicants for the required information, including generic propecia price. I. Applicant Name ii.

Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering generic propecia price System (DUNS) number iii. Key contact information (contact name, address, email address, and phone number) iv. Congressional district(s) where project will take place v. Project Information (title, generic propecia price executive summary, and type) vi. A detailed description of the need for the project vii.

A detailed description of how the project will support the generic propecia price Program objectives viii. Evidence that the applicant can provide the local cost shares ix. A description of the technical, legal, and financial capacity of the applicant x. A detailed generic propecia price project budget xi. Details on the local matching funds xii.

A detailed project timeline xiii. Whether the project impacts an Opportunity Zone (3) Unique Entity Identifier generic propecia price and System for Award Management (SAM) Each applicant is required to. (1) Be registered in SAM before submitting an application. (2) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its application. And (3) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the applicant has an active Federal award or an application generic propecia price or plan under consideration by FTA.

These requirements do not apply if the applicant. (1) Is excepted from the requirements under 2 CFR 25.110(b) or (c). Or (2) has an exception approved by FTA under 2 CFR 25.110(d) generic propecia price. FTA may not make an award until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time FTA is ready to make generic propecia price an award, FTA may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive an award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.

All applicants must provide a unique entity identifier provided by SAM. Registration in SAM may take as little as 3-5 business days, but there can be unexpected steps or delays. For example, generic propecia price the applicant may need to obtain an Employer Identification Number. FTA recommends allowing ample time, up to several weeks, to complete all steps. For additional information on obtaining a unique entity identifier, please visit www.sam.gov.

(4) Submission Dates and generic propecia price Times Project proposals must be submitted electronically through GRANTS.GOV by 11:59 p.m. Eastern on November 2, 2020. Mail and fax submissions will not be accepted. FTA urges applicants to submit applications at least 72 hours prior to the due date to allow time to correct any problems that may have caused either generic propecia price GRANTS.GOV or FTA systems to reject the submission. Proposals submitted after the deadline will only be considered under extraordinary circumstances not within the applicant's control.

Deadlines will not be extended due to scheduled website maintenance generic propecia price. GRANTS.GOV scheduled maintenance and outage times are announced on the GRANTS.GOV website. Within 48 hours after submitting an electronic application, the applicant should receive two email messages from GRANTS.GOV. (1) Confirmation generic propecia price of successful transmission to GRANTS.GOV. And (2) confirmation of successful validation by GRANTS.GOV.

If the applicant does not receive confirmation of successful validation or receives a notice of failed validation or incomplete materials, the applicant must address the reason for the failed validation, as described in the email notice, and resubmit before the submission deadline. If making a resubmission for any reason, applicants must include all original attachments regardless of which attachments were updated and check the box on the supplemental form indicating this is a resubmission generic propecia price. Applicants are encouraged to begin the process of registration on the GRANTS.GOV site well in advance of the submission deadline. Registration is Start Printed Page 63656a multi-step process, which may take several weeks to complete before an application can be submitted. Registered applicants may still be required to update their registration before submitting an generic propecia price application.

Registration in SAM is renewed annually and persons making submissions on behalf of the Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) must be authorized in GRANTS.GOV by the AOR to make submissions. (5) Funding Restrictions Funds may be used for post-award expenditures only. Funds under this NOFO cannot be used to reimburse projects for otherwise eligible expenses incurred prior to the generic propecia price date of project award announcements. (6) Other Submission Requirements FTA encourages applicants to identify scaled funding options in case insufficient funding is available to fund a project at the full requested amount. If an applicant indicates that a project is scalable, generic propecia price the applicant must provide an appropriate minimum funding amount that will fund an eligible project that achieves the objectives of the program and meets all relevant program requirements.

The applicant must provide a clear explanation of how a reduced award would affect the project budget and scope. FTA may award a lesser amount whether or not the applicant provides a scalable option. E. Application Review Information (1) Project Evaluation Criteria Addressing the deteriorating conditions and disproportionately high fatality rates on our rural transportation infrastructure is of critical interest to the Department, as rural transportation networks face unique challenges in safety, infrastructure condition, and passenger and freight usage. Consistent with the R.O.U.T.E.S.

Initiative, the Department will consider how the project will address the challenges faced by rural areas. In addition, the Department will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this Notice in accordance with the President's September 2, 2020 memorandum, entitled Memorandum on Reviewing Funding to State and Local Government Recipients of Federal Funds that Are Permitting Anarchy, Violence, and Destruction in American Cities, consistent with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Attorney General and with all applicable laws. FTA will evaluate proposals submitted according to the following criteria. (a) Project Innovation and Impact. (b) Project Approach.

(c) National Applicability. (d) Commercialization and/or Knowledge Transfer. And (e) Technical, Legal and Financial Capacity. FTA encourages each applicant to demonstrate how a project supports all criteria with the most relevant information the applicant can provide, regardless of whether such information has been specifically requested or identified in this notice. A.

Project Innovation and Impact i. Effectiveness of the project in achieving and demonstrating the specific objectives of this program. Ii. Demonstration of benefits in addressing the needs of the transit agency and industry and impacts to infrastructure, equipment, transit workforce, and riders. Iii.

Degree of improvement over current and existing technologies, designs, and/or practices applicable to the transit industry. B. Project Approach i. Quality of the project approach such as existing partnerships, collaboration strategies and level of commitment of the project partners. Ii.

Proposal is realistic in its approach to fulfill the milestones/deliverables, schedule and goals. C. National Applicability i. Degree to which the project could be replicated by other transit agencies regionally or nationally. Ii.

Ability to evaluate technologies, designs and/or practices in a wide variety of conditions and locales. Iii. Degree to which the technology, designs and/or practices can be replicated by other transportation modes. D. Commercialization and/or Knowledge Transfer i.

Demonstrates a realistic plan for moving the results of the project into the transit marketplace (patents, conferences, articles in trade magazines, webinar, site visits, etc.). Ii. How the project team plans to work with the industry on improving best practices, guidance and/or standards, if applicable. Iii. Demonstrate a clear understanding and robust approach to data collection, access and management.

E. Technical, Legal and Financial Capacity Capacity of the applicant and any partners to successfully execute the project effort. There should be no outstanding legal, technical, or financial issues with the applicant that would make this a high-risk project. (2) Review and Selection Process An FTA technical evaluation committee will evaluate proposals based on the published project evaluation criteria. Members of the technical evaluation committee will rate the applications and may seek clarification about any statement in an application.

The FTA Administrator will determine the final selection and amount of funding for each project after consideration of the findings of the technical evaluation committee. Geographic diversity, diversity of the project type, the amount of local match to be provided, and the applicant's receipt and management of other Federal transit funds may be considered in FTA's award decisions. Prior fare payment innovation efforts may receive priority consideration. The FTA Administrator will consider the following key DOT objectives. A.

Utilizing alternative funding sources and innovative financing models to attract non-Federal sources of investment. B. Whether the project is located in or supports public transportation service in a qualified opportunity zone designated pursuant to 26.U.S.C. 1400Z-1. And c.

The extent to which the project addresses challenges specific to the provision of rural public transportation. (3) FAPIIS Review Prior to making a grant award, FTA is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) accessible through SAM. An applicant may review and comment on information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. FTA will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 2 CFR 200.205 Federal Awarding Agency Review of Risk Posed by Applicants. F.

Federal Award Administration Information (1) Federal Award Notices FTA will announce the final project selections on the FTA website. Project recipients should contact their FTA Regional Office for additional information regarding allocations for Start Printed Page 63657projects. At the time project selections are announced, FTA will extend pre-award authority for the selected projects. There is no blanket pre-award authority for these projects before announcement. There is no minimum or maximum grant award amount, but FTA intends to fund as many meritorious projects as possible.

FTA only will consider proposals from eligible recipients for eligible activities. Due to funding limitations, projects selected for funding may receive less than the amount originally requested. In those cases, applicants must be able to demonstrate that the proposed projects are still viable and can be completed with the amount awarded. (2) Administrative and National Policy Requirements a. Pre-Award Authority FTA will issue specific guidance to recipients regarding pre-award authority at the time of selection.

FTA does not provide pre-award authority for competitive funds until projects are selected, and there are Federal requirements that must be met before costs are incurred. For more information about FTA's policy on pre-award authority, see the FY 2020 Apportionments Notice published on June 3, 2020, at https://www.govinfo.gov/​content/​pkg/​FR-2020-06-03/​pdf/​2020-11946.pdf. b. Grant Requirements Selected applicants will submit a grant application through FTA's electronic grant management system and adhere to the customary FTA grant requirements for research project (insert Circular name). All competitive grants, regardless of award amount, will be subject to the Congressional notification and release process.

FTA emphasizes that third-party procurement applies to all funding awards, as described in FTA Circular 4220.1F, “Third Party Contracting Guidance.” However, FTA may approve applications that include a specifically identified partnering organization(s) (2 CFR 200.302(f)). When included, the application, budget, and budget narrative should provide a clear understanding of how the selection of these organizations is critical for the project and give sufficient detail about the costs involved. C. Planning FTA encourages applicants to engage the appropriate State Departments of Transportation, Regional Transportation Planning Organizations, or Metropolitan Planning Organizations in areas to be served by the project funds available under this program. D.

Standard Assurances The applicant assures that it will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, FTA circulars, and other Federal administrative requirements in carrying out any project supported by the FTA grant. The applicant acknowledges that it is under a continuing obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement issued for its project with FTA. The applicant understands that Federal laws, regulations, policies, and administrative practices might be modified from time to time and may affect the implementation of the project. The applicant agrees that the most recent Federal requirements will apply to the project unless FTA issues a written determination otherwise. The applicant must submit the Certifications and Assurances before receiving a grant if it does not have current certifications on file.

E. Free Speech and Religious Liberty In connection with any program or activity conducted with or benefiting from funds awarded under this notice, recipients of funds must comply with all applicable requirements of Federal law, including, without limitation, the Constitution of the United States. Statutory, regulatory, and public policy requirements, including without limitation, those protecting free speech, religious liberty, public welfare, the environment, and prohibiting discrimination. The conditions of performance, non-discrimination requirements, and other assurances made applicable to the award of funds in accordance with regulations of the Department of Transportation. And applicable Federal financial assistance and contracting principles promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget.

In complying with these requirements, recipients must ensure that no concession agreements are denied or other contracting decisions made on the basis of speech or other activities protected by the First Amendment. If the Department determines that a recipient has failed to comply with applicable Federal requirements, the Department may terminate the award of funds and disallow previously incurred costs, requiring the recipient to reimburse any expended award funds. (3) Reporting The post-award reporting requirements include submission of the Federal Financial Report (FFR) and Milestone Progress Report in TrAMS. An evaluation of the grant will occur at various points in the demonstration process and at the end of the project. In addition, FTA is responsible for producing an Annual Report to Congress that compiles evaluation of selected projects, including an evaluation of the performance measures identified by the applicants.

All applicants must develop an evaluation plan to measure the success or failure of their projects and describe any plans for broad-based implementation of successful projects. FTA may request data and reports to support the evaluation and Annual Report. A. Independent Evaluation To achieve a comprehensive understanding of the impacts and implications of each proposed hair loss treatment Research Demonstration Program, projects funded under this announcement will require the recipient to conduct a third party independent evaluation of their project. Recipients will be required to contract with a third party independent evaluator to assist in developing an evaluation plan, and collecting, storing and managing data required to fulfill the evaluation requirement.

No more than 10 percent of the Federal share of the project may be used to hire the third-party independent evaluator and the inclusion of a third-party independent evaluation should be described in the grant application. If the project duration is more than two years, an interim evaluation report would need to be submitted to FTA, otherwise the evaluation report should be included as part of the final project report. B. hair loss treatment Research Demonstration Grant Program Evaluation Projects funded under this announcement will be required to establish a set of performance metrics set by the third-party independent evaluator and shared with FTA. G.

Federal Awarding Agency Contacts Information For questions about applying, please contact Jamel El-Hamri email. Jamel.El-Hamri@dot.gov phone. 202-366-8985. A TDD is available at 1-800-877-8339 (TDDFIRS). To ensure that applicants receive accurate information about eligibility or the program, applicants are encouraged to contact FTA directly with questions, rather than through intermediaries or third parties.Start Printed Page 63658 FTA staff also may conduct briefings on the competitive grants selection and award process upon request.

Start Signature K. Jane Williams, Deputy Administrator. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2020-22316 Filed 10-7-20. 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910-57-PStart Preamble Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

Notice. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (OIDP) in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) announces the draft Viral Hepatitis National Strategic Plan. A Roadmap to Elimination (2021-2025) (Hepatitis Plan) available for public comment. The draft Hepatitis Plan may be reviewed at www.hhs.gov/​hepatitis. All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m.

ET on October 8, 2020 to ensure consideration. All comments must be submitted electronically to HepatitisPlanComments@hhs.gov. Start Further Info Carol Jimenez, OIDP, Carol.Jimenez@hhs.gov. 202-401-5131. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information Viral hepatitis is a significant public health threat that puts people who are infected at increased risk for serious disease and death.

In the United States, new hepatitis A and hepatitis C s have increased dramatically in recent years, little progress has been made on preventing hepatitis B s, and, as of 2016, an estimated 3.3 million people were chronically infected with hepatitis B and hepatitis C.1-3 Collectively, viral hepatitis costs people, health systems, states, and the federal government billions of dollars each year 4 5 and contributes to substantial health disparities, stigma, and discrimination. Reversing the rates of viral hepatitis, preventing new s, and improving care and treatment require a strategic and coordinated approach by federal partners in collaboration with state and local health departments, tribal communities, community-based organizations, and other nonfederal partners and stakeholders. To spur action to reduce new viral hepatitis s and their adverse public health impact, OASH through OIDP, in collaboration with federal partners throughout HHS and other departments, led and coordinated development of the Hepatitis Plan. Opportunities for public input were provided, and public comments received were reviewed and analyzed and helped inform the components of the Hepatitis Plan. The Hepatitis Plan focuses on hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C—the hepatitis propeciaes that most significantly affect the health of the nation.

It is an elimination plan, with the overarching goal of eliminating viral hepatitis as a public health threat in the United States by 2030. The Hepatitis Plan is intended to serve as a roadmap for all stakeholders at all levels to eliminate hepatitis in this nation. The Hepatitis Plan presents a strategic framework for integrating and leveraging synergistic policies, programs, and resources. It sets forth a vision and five goals for the nation, with objectives and strategies for each goal. The objectives and strategies offered in this plan are interrelated and may be used to make progress toward more than one goal.

The Hepatitis Plan identifies disproportionately impacted populations based on national hepatitis incidence, prevalence, and mortality data, to help federal and other stakeholders focus their efforts to realize the greatest impact. The Hepatitis Plan also includes indicators to measure progress and quantitative targets for each indicator. Although it is a 5-year plan, it sets 10-year quantitative targets for each indicator—reflecting the reality that it will take more than 5 years to eliminate viral hepatitis as a public health threat. The order in which the goals, objectives, strategies, and indicators are presented is not associated with any prioritization. The following are the Hepatitis Plan's vision and goals.

Vision. The United States will be a place where new viral hepatitis s are prevented, every person knows their status, and every person with viral hepatitis has high-quality health care and treatment and lives free from stigma and discrimination. This vision includes all people, regardless of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, geographic location, or socioeconomic circumstance. Goals. 1.

Prevent New Viral Hepatitis s 2. Improve Viral Hepatitis—Related Health Outcomes of People with Viral Hepatitis 3. Reduce Viral Hepatitis—Related Disparities and Health Inequities 4. Improve Viral Hepatitis Surveillance and Data Usage 5. Achieve Integrated, Coordinated Efforts That Address the Viral Hepatitis Epidemics among All Partners and Stakeholders A roadmap for stakeholders at all levels and sectors, the Hepatitis Plan envisions a whole-of-nation response to preventing and controlling viral hepatitis in the United States.

The Hepatitis Plan assumes the active participation of state, local, and tribal health departments and organizations, health plans and health care providers, schools and other academic institutions, community- and faith-based organizations, scientists, researchers, and the public in this effort. The priority populations, indicators, and quantitative targets, especially the methods used to determine them, are intended to help focus efforts and limited resources to realize the most impact. Stakeholders are encouraged to focus on activities that resonate the most with the needs of the populations they serve and services they provide, and, using the Hepatitis Plan as a framework, develop their own plans to eliminate viral hepatitis and improve the health of their communities, states, tribal nations, and the nation. Information Needs The draft Hepatitis Plan may be reviewed at. Www.hhs.gov/​hepatitis.

OIDP seeks to obtain feedback from external stakeholders on the following. 1. Do the draft plan's goals, objectives, and strategies appropriately address the viral hepatitis epidemics?. 2. Are there any critical gaps in the Hepatitis Plan's goals, objectives, and strategies?.

If so, please specify the gaps. 3. Do any of the Hepatitis Plan's goals, objectives and strategies cause concern?. If so, please specify the goal, objective or strategy, and describe the concern regarding it. Each commenter is limited to a maximum of seven pages.

Start Authority 77 FR 15761 (March 16, 2012). End Authority Start Signature Dated. September 22, 2020. B. Kaye Hayes, Acting Director, Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy.

End Signature Footnotes 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Viral Hepatitis Surveillance—Start Printed Page 60814United States, 2018. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

2020. Accessed August 9, 2020. Https://www.cdc.gov/​hepatitis/​statistics/​2018surveillance/​index.htm. 2. Hofmeister MG, Rosenthal EM, Barker LK, et al.

Estimating prevalence of hepatitis C propecia in the United States, 2013-2016. Hepatology. 2019 Mar;69(3):1020-1031. Doi. 10.1002/hep.30297.

3. LeFevre ML. Screening for hepatitis B propecia in nonpregnant adolescents and adults. US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Annals Internal Med.

2014;161(1):58-66. 4. Morey RJ, Collier MG, Nelson NP. The financial burden of public health responses to hepatitis A cases among food handlers, 2012-2014. Public Health Rep.

2017;132(4):443-447. Doi:10.1177/0033354917710947. 5. Wittenborn J, Brady J, Dougherty M, Rein D. Potential epidemiologic, economic, and budgetary impacts of current rates of hepatitis C treatment in Medicare and non-Medicare populations.

Hepatol Commun. 2017;1(2):99-109. Doi:10.1002/hep4.1031. End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2020-21288 Filed 9-25-20.