Annual IRO Verification Review Sample Clauses

Annual IRO Verification Review. At the end of each Review Year (as defined in Section XXX.X.0.x.xx below) of the CIA, the IRO will verify a sample of each Sun Internal Review Team member's MDS Audit determinations to ensure the reviewer is making accurate judgements. To conduct the verification review, the IRO will review either 10% or 15 sampling units from each Internal Review Team member's previous year's MDS Audits, whichever is greater, and the accuracy of the reviewer's determinations shall be recorded. The IRO shall randomly select each reviewer's sample using RAT-STATS. Any incorrect MDS Audit determinations made by a Team member will constitute an error. If 5% or more of a team member's determinations are incorrect, the Internal Review Team member will be removed from the Team unless retention of the Internal Review Team member is otherwise recommended by the IRO and accepted by the OIG. The audit test results for each Internal Review Team member and any recommendation or supporting rationale will be included in each Annual Report to the OIG. The OIG, will have discretion to remove any person from the Internal Review Team at any time.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Annual IRO Verification Review

  • Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Subscribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services un- der the plan. Blue Shield has completed documen- tation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required under Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review pro- cess, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.

  • Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure: A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have. B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit. C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant. D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable. E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Eligibility Verification (a) HHSC will verify Medicaid eligibility for Dual Eligible Members by the fifth business day of the month following the receipt of the MA Dual SNP’s monthly enrollment file, in accordance with Section 3.02(b). (b) To verify Medicaid eligibility of an individual Member, HHSC agrees to provide the MA Dual SNP with real-time access to HHSC’s claims administrator’s Medicaid eligibility verification system.

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • Medical Verification The Town may require medical verification of an employee’s absence if the Town perceives the employee is abusing sick leave or has used an excessive amount of sick leave. The Town may require medical verification of an employee’s absence to verify that the employee is able to return to work with or without restrictions.

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

  • Design Review ‌ (a) Where so specified in Schedule A (Scope of Goods and Services) or as otherwise instructed by the City, the Supplier shall submit design-related Documentation for review by the City, and shall not proceed with work on the basis of such design Documentation until the City’s approval of such Documentation has been received in writing. (b) None of: (i) the submission of Documentation to the City by the Supplier; (ii) its examination by or on behalf of the City; or (iii) the making of any comment thereon (including any approval thereof) shall in any way relieve the Supplier of any of its obligations under this Agreement or of its duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and correctness of such Documentation, and its suitability to the matter to which it relates.

  • Search, Enquiry, Investigation, Examination And Verification a. The Property is sold on an “as is where is basis” subject to all the necessary inspection, search (including but not limited to the status of title), enquiry (including but not limited to the terms of consent to transfer and/or assignment and outstanding charges), investigation, examination and verification of which the Purchaser is already advised to conduct prior to the auction and which the Purchaser warrants to the Assignee has been conducted by the Purchaser’s independent legal advisors at the time of execution of the Memorandum. b. The intending bidder or the Purchaser is responsible at own costs and expenses to make and shall be deemed to have carried out own search, enquiry, investigation, examination and verification on all liabilities and encumbrances affecting the Property, the title particulars as well as the accuracy and correctness of the particulars and information provided. c. The Purchaser shall be deemed to purchase the Property in all respects subject thereto and shall also be deemed to have full knowledge of the state and condition of the Property regardless of whether or not the said search, enquiry, investigation, examination and verification have been conducted. d. The Purchaser shall be deemed to have read, understood and accepted these Conditions of Sale prior to the auction and to have knowledge of all matters which would have been disclosed thereby and the Purchaser expressly warrants to the Assignee that the Purchaser has sought independent legal advice on all matters pertaining to this sale and has been advised by his/her/its independent legal advisor of the effect of all the Conditions of Sale. e. Neither the Assignee nor the Auctioneer shall be required or bound to inform the Purchaser of any such matters whether known to them or not and the Purchaser shall raise no enquiry, requisition or objection thereon or thereto.

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