Hepatitis C Treatment Expansion Initiative Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the Hepatitis C Treatment Expansion Initiative Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center (HRSA-10-216)?

HRSA-10-216 is a Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) cooperative agreement opportunity to create a single, national Evaluation and Support Center. The Center was intended to strengthen and expand hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment within Ryan White-funded HIV primary care settings by providing hands-on technical assistance and conducting a rigorous, practical evaluation across multiple sites.

What problem was this opportunity designed to address?

The announcement was built around the idea that HCV treatment is widely underused among people living with HIV. HRSA identified real-world barriers in clinics, such as limited staffing, gaps in clinical expertise, workflow constraints, and limited funding capacity. The Center was meant to help providers overcome those barriers by supporting effective care models and evaluating what works in practice.

Which federal agency and program issued the funding opportunity?

The opportunity was issued by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) through its HIV/AIDS Bureau. The program was listed under CFDA 93.928, Special Projects of National Significance.

What type of funding mechanism was used?

This was a discretionary funding opportunity using a cooperative agreement mechanism. Cooperative agreements typically involve substantial federal involvement in project direction, progress monitoring, and coordination of activities.

How many awards did HRSA plan to make?

HRSA expected to make one award to fund a single Evaluation and Support Center serving as the national hub for evaluation and technical assistance.

What was the estimated total funding amount?

The estimated total funding amount was $1,700,000.

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The opportunity did not require cost sharing or matching funds.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was open to public and nonprofit private entities, including faith-based and community-based organizations. However, applicants needed to meet specific experience requirements related to both HIV care and HCV service modalities, as well as multi-site evaluation and technical assistance capabilities.

What clinical experience did applicants need to demonstrate?

Applicants needed demonstrated experience delivering HIV primary health care and working with HCV treatment service modalities. The Center was intended to operate in Ryan White-funded HIV primary care settings, so HIV clinical expertise and familiarity with HCV treatment approaches were central expectations.

What evaluation and research experience did applicants need to demonstrate?

Applicants were required to show strong evidence of experience conducting multi-site evaluation or research. This included having data collection systems, statistical and analytical methodology, evaluation support functions, and the ability to provide technical assistance to participating organizations.

What was the primary purpose of the Evaluation and Support Center?

The Center was designed to serve as a national hub to (1) provide hands-on technical assistance to multiple Ryan White-funded organizations implementing HCV treatment models within HIV primary care and (2) evaluate those models across sites to identify effective approaches, understand drivers of success, and determine what clinics need to deliver HCV treatment consistently to people co-infected with HIV.

What did “technical assistance” mean in the context of this opportunity?

Based on the announcement description, technical assistance focused on helping Ryan White providers adopt and implement HCV treatment models within HIV primary care settings. This included practical support to address implementation barriers such as staffing limitations, clinical expertise gaps, workflow constraints, and capacity challenges.

Was the Center focused on one clinic or one intervention?

No. The Center was designed to support a multi-site learning and evaluation effort across multiple Ryan White-funded organizations. The goal was to enable comparisons of different approaches and to generate cross-site, implementation-focused evidence.

What was the evaluation expected to measure?

The evaluation emphasized collecting both process and outcome data. This meant documenting clinical and program outcomes as well as how implementation happened day to day, including details about workflows and operational choices used to deliver HCV care in HIV primary care settings.

What kinds of “process” information were specifically called out?

The announcement indicated the Center would track implementation details such as referral pathways, staffing patterns, integration into HIV clinic workflows, patient engagement strategies, and treatment completion processes.

What kinds of “outcome” information was the Center expected to collect?

The Center was expected to collect patient-level and program-level outcomes. The description distinguishes outcomes from process measures, indicating a focus on results as well as implementation experience, though specific clinical endpoints were not listed in the provided summary.

Were costs part of the evaluation?

Yes. The announcement explicitly called for collecting information on costs associated with delivering HCV care and treatment in Ryan White-funded HIV primary care settings, reflecting an interest in the resources required for scale-up and the financial realities of integrating HCV services into HIV primary care.

How was the evaluation structured across participants?

The evaluation design included two cohorts of Ryan White grantees providing HCV care and treatment to HIV-infected populations. Studying two cohorts was intended to support comparisons across groups of providers and analysis of changes over time, strengthening the credibility of findings through broader participation.

Who were the participating organizations the Center would work with?

The Center was expected to work across multiple Ryan White-funded organizations implementing HCV treatment models within HIV primary care. The opportunity emphasized cross-site learning and evaluation rather than work limited to a single provider.

What were the expected deliverables or end products?

The end product was meant to go beyond an academic report. The Center was expected to compile lessons learned and translate them into best-practice models and actionable guidance that could be shared across the broader Ryan White community and other providers, with the goal of improving access, quality, and consistency of HCV treatment for people living with HIV.

Why did HRSA choose a cooperative agreement for this project?

The announcement characterized the opportunity as a cooperative agreement, which generally signals that HRSA anticipated substantial federal involvement. Based on the provided information, that involvement would likely include shaping project direction, monitoring progress, and coordinating activities tied to the multi-site evaluation and technical assistance work.

What were the key dates for this opportunity?

The opportunity was posted on March 18, 2010. The application closing date was May 3, 2010. The archive date was July 2, 2010.

Where could applicants get help accessing the full announcement?

Applicants needing assistance were directed to the HRSA Call Center at CallCenter@HRSA.GOV and to the HRSA support phone lines listed in the notice.

What does “archived” mean here?

Based on the dates provided, the archive date (July 2, 2010) indicates the opportunity was no longer active after that point. The summary does not describe any later re-openings or extensions.

Does the description specify the exact HCV treatment model that had to be used?

No. The description emphasizes identifying and supporting effective care models and evaluating multiple approaches across sites. It does not name a single required model within the provided information.

Does the description identify specific staffing roles or minimum staffing levels required at the Center?

No. While staffing patterns at participating clinics were specifically mentioned as an evaluation focus, the provided summary does not list required job titles or staffing minimums for the Center itself.