Actuary’s assessment Sample Clauses

Actuary’s assessment. As required by Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) No. 23, Data Quality, we disclose that Milliman has relied upon certain data and information provided by the ODM and its vendors, primarily the MCOPs. The values presented in this letter are dependent upon this reliance. We find the encounter data used as the base data source for the development of the 2022 capitation rates to be of appropriate quality and suitable for the purpose of developing actuarially sound rates (subject to the data concerns and resolutions indicated in the Data concerns section below). The resulting base data PMPM expenditures for CY 2019, after the application of the adjustments, is within approximately 1.3% of the MCOP survey updated CY 2019 experience PMPM expenditures. The encounter data additionally appears reasonable in relation to Medicaid dual eligible managed care industry experience.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Actuary’s assessment. As required by Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) No. 23, Data Quality, we disclose that Milliman has relied upon certain data and information provided by the ODM and its vendors, primarily the MCOPs. The values presented in this letter are dependent upon this reliance. We find the cost report data used as the base data source for the development of the 2018 capitation rates to be of appropriate quality and suitable for the purpose of developing actuarially sound rates (subject to the data concerns and resolutions indicated in the Data concerns section below). The resulting base data PMPM expenditures for CY 2016, after the application of the adjustments, is approximately 1.3% greater than the PMPM expenditures submitted by the MCOPs. The cost report data additionally appears reasonable in relation to Medicaid dual eligible managed care industry experience.
Sample 1
Actuary’s assessment. As required by Actuarial Standard of Practice (ASOP) No. 23, Data Quality, we disclose that Milliman has relied upon certain data and information provided by the Ohio Department of Medicaid and their vendors, primarily the MCOs. The values presented in this letter are dependent upon this reliance. While there are areas for data improvement, as detailed in the Data concerns section below, we found the encounter data to be of appropriate quality for developing the July 2022 capitation rates.
Sample 1
Actuary’s assessment. As required by Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 23, Data Quality, we disclose that we have relied upon certain data and information provided by ODM and their vendors, primarily the MCOPs and ODM’s fiscal agent. The certification is dependent upon this reliance. The FFS data represents the most appropriate data to be used for developing the actuarially sound capitation rates for the CY 2016 MyCare program. The MCOP cost reports are believed to be useful for reference purposes only as opposed to explicit base data. The cost reports contain indications of MCOP costs and are used to inform assumptions used to adjust the FFS data. The MCOP encounter data is not of sufficient quantity or quality to be relied upon for the development of actuarially sound capitation rates.
Sample 1
Actuary’s assessment. As required by Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 23, Data Quality, we disclose that we have relied upon certain data and information provided by ODM and their vendors, primarily the MCOPs and ODM’s fiscal agent. The certification is dependent upon this reliance. We find the cost report data used to develop the 2017 capitation rates to be of appropriate quality and suitable for the purpose of developing actuarially sound rates (subject to the data concerns and resolutions indicated in the Data concerns section below). The resulting base data PMPM expenditures for CY 2015, after adjustments for data quality, is approximately 1.9% greater than the PMPM expenditures submitted by the MCOPs. The cost report data additionally appears reasonable in relation to Medicaid dual eligible managed care industry experience. We believe developing the Opt-Out capitation rates from a blend of Opt-Out and Opt-In experience, with appropriate adjustments, represents the most reasonable usage of available base experience data. We believe this methodology provides greater stability to capitation rates on a year to year basis. The MCOP encounter data is not of sufficient quality to be relied upon for development of the majority of adjustments for reimbursement or policy changes that will impact MyCare expenditures during the rate period beginning January 1, 2017. Adjustments for reimbursement or policy changes were primarily developed from a combination of May 1, 2013 through April 30, 2014 FFS data for the MyCare eligible population located in participating counties, along with CY 2015 FFS data for beneficiaries who would otherwise be eligible for MyCare, but reside in non-participating counties. We believe the historical FFS data corresponding to the MyCare eligible population to be the most appropriate data for development of the majority of program and policy change adjustments. The specified FFS data was used in the development of the CY 2016 MyCare capitation rates and has been reviewed for reasonableness and completeness.
Sample 1

Related to Actuary’s assessment

  • Needs Assessment The determination of whether the Annual Income of a family or individual occupying or seeking to occupy a Qualifying Unit complies with the requirements for Extremely Low-Income Households or Low- to Moderate-Income Households shall be made by the applicable housing authority in the CDBG-DR Program area prior to admission of such family or individual to occupancy of a Qualifying Unit.

  • Loss Assessment We will pay up to $1000 for your share of loss assessment charged during the policy period against you by a corporation or as- sociation of property owners, when the assess- ment is made as a result of:

  • Joint Assessment If the Premises are not separately assessed, Lessee's liability shall be an equitable proportion of the Real Property Taxes for all of the land and improvements included within the tax parcel assessed, such proportion to be conclusively determined by Lessor from the respective valuations assigned in the assessor's work sheets or such other information as may be reasonably available.

  • No Joint Assessment Borrower shall not suffer, permit or initiate the joint assessment of the Property (a) with any other real property constituting a tax lot separate from the Property, and (b) which constitutes real property with any portion of the Property which may be deemed to constitute personal property, or any other procedure whereby the lien of any taxes which may be levied against such personal property shall be assessed or levied or charged to such real property portion of the Property.

  • Performance Assessment 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out key performance indicators and competencies that needs to be evaluated in terms of – 6.1.1 The standards and procedures for evaluating the Employee’s performance; and 6.1.2 During the intervals for the evaluation of the Employee’s performance. 6.2 Despite the establishment of agreed intervals for evaluation, the Employer may in addition review the Employee’s performance at any stage while the contract of employment remains in force; 6.3 Personal growth and development needs identified during any performance review discussion must be documented in a Personal Development Plan as well as the actions agreed to and implementation must take place within set time frames; 6.4 The Employee’s performance will also be measured in terms of contributions to the goals and strategies set out in the Employer’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) as described in 6.6 – 6.13 below; 6.5 The Employee will submit quarterly performance reports (SDBIP) and a comprehensive annual performance report at least one week prior to the performance assessment meetings to the Evaluation Panel Chairperson for distribution to the panel members for preparation purposes; 6.6 Assessment of the achievement of results as outlined in the performance plan: 6.6.1 Each KPI or group of KPIs shall be assessed according to the extent to which the specified standards or performance targets have been met (qualitative and quantitative) and with due regard to ad-hoc tasks that had to be performed under the KPI; 6.6.2 A rating on the five-point scale described in 6.9 below shall be provided for each KPI or group of KPIs which will then be multiplied by the weighting to calculate the final score; 6.6.3 The Employee will submit his self-evaluation to the Employer prior to the formal assessment; 6.6.4 In the instance where the employee could not perform due to reasons outside the control of the employer and employee, the KPI will not be considered during the evaluation. The employee should provide sufficient evidence in such instances; and 6.6.5 An overall score will be calculated based on the total of the individual scores calculated above.

  • Conformity Assessment Procedures 1. Each Party shall give positive consideration to accepting the results of conformity assessment procedures of other Parties, even where those procedures differ from its own, provided it is satisfied that those procedures offer an assurance of conformity with applicable technical regulations or standards equivalent to its own procedures. 2. Each Party shall seek to enhance the acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures conducted in the territories of other Parties with a view to increasing efficiency, avoiding duplication and ensuring cost effectiveness of the conformity assessments. In this regard, each Party may choose, depending on the situation of the Party and the specific sectors involved, a broad range of approaches. These may include but are not limited to: (a) recognition by a Party of the results of conformity assessments performed in the territory of another Party; (b) recognition of co-operative arrangements between accreditation bodies in the territories of the Parties; (c) mutual recognition of conformity assessment procedures conducted by bodies located in the territory of each Party; (d) accreditation of conformity assessment bodies in the territory of another Party; (e) use of existing regional and international multilateral recognition agreements and arrangements; (f) designating conformity assessment bodies located in the territory of another Party to perform conformity assessment; and (g) suppliers’ declaration of conformity. 3. Each Party shall exchange information with other Parties on its experience in the development and application of the approaches in Paragraph 2(a) to (g) and other appropriate approaches with a view to facilitating the acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures. 4. A Party shall, upon request of another Party, explain its reasons for not accepting the results of any conformity assessment procedure performed in the territory of that other Party.

  • Assessment The Secretary of State will notify the appropriate body for assessment purposes about the Academy.

  • Risk Assessment An assessment of any risks inherent in the work requirements and actions to mitigate these risks.

  • Ergonomic Assessments ‌ At the request of the employee, the Employer will ensure that an ergonomic assessment of the employee’s workstation is completed. Solutions to identified issues will be implemented within available resources.

  • Risk Assessments a. Risk Assessment - DST shall, at least annually, perform risk assessments that are designed to identify material threats (both internal and external) against Fund Data, the likelihood of those threats Schedule 10.2 p.2 occurring and the impact of those threats upon DST organization to evaluate and analyze the appropriate level of information security safeguards (“Risk Assessments”). b. Risk Mitigation - DST shall use commercially reasonable efforts to manage, control and remediate threats identified in the Risk Assessments that it believes are likely to result in material unauthorized access, copying, use, processing, disclosure, alteration, transfer, loss or destruction of Fund Data, consistent with the Objective, and commensurate with the sensitivity of the Fund Data and the complexity and scope of the activities of DST pursuant to the Agreement. c. Security Controls Testing - DST shall, on approximately an annual basis, engage an independent external party to conduct a review (including information security) of DST’s systems that are related to the provision of services. DST shall have a process to review and evaluate high risk findings resulting from this testing.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!