Peer Code Review. All production code must be approved through a peer code review process. 4.
Peer Code Review Sample Clauses
Related to Peer Code Review
Peer Review Dental Group, after consultation with the Joint ----------- Operations Committee, shall implement, regularly review, modify as necessary or appropriate and obtain the commitment of Providers to actively participate in peer review procedures for Providers. Dental Group shall assist Manager in the production of periodic reports describing the results of such procedures. Dental Group shall provide Manager with prompt notice of any information that raises a reasonable risk to the health and safety of Group Patients or Beneficiaries. In any event, after consultation with the Joint Operations Committee, Dental Group shall take such action as may be reasonably warranted under the facts and circumstances.
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.
Power Factor Design Criteria Developer shall design the Large Generating Facility to maintain an effective power delivery at demonstrated maximum net capability at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor within the range established by the Connecting Transmission Owner on a comparable basis, until NYISO has established different requirements that apply to all generators in the New York Control Area on a comparable basis. The Developer shall design and maintain the plant auxiliary systems to operate safely throughout the entire real and reactive power design range. The Connecting Transmission Owner shall not unreasonably restrict or condition the reactive power production or absorption of the Large Generating Facility in accordance with Good Utility Practice.
Classification Review (a) An Employee who has reason to believe that they are improperly classified due to a substantial change in job duties, may apply to the Department Director, or designate, to have the Employee’s classification reviewed. The Director, or designate, will review the Employee’s application and advise the Employee of the Employer’s decision.
Power Factor Design Criteria (Reactive Power A wind generating plant shall maintain a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, measured at the Point of Interconnection as defined in this LGIA, if the ISO’s System Reliability Impact Study shows that such a requirement is necessary to ensure safety or reliability. The power factor range standards can be met using, for example without limitation, power electronics designed to supply this level of reactive capability (taking into account any limitations due to voltage level, real power output, etc.) or fixed and switched capacitors if agreed to by the Connecting Transmission Owner for the Transmission District to which the wind generating plant will be interconnected, or a combination of the two. The Developer shall not disable power factor equipment while the wind plant is in operation. Wind plants shall also be able to provide sufficient dynamic voltage support in lieu of the power system stabilizer and automatic voltage regulation at the generator excitation system if the System Reliability Impact Study shows this to be required for system safety or reliability.
Utilization Review We review health services to determine whether the services are or were Medically Necessary or experimental or investigational ("Medically Necessary"). This process is called Utilization Review. Utilization Review includes all review activities, whether they take place prior to the service being performed (Preauthorization); when the service is being performed (concurrent); or after the service is performed (retrospective). If You have any questions about the Utilization Review process, please call the number on Your ID card. The toll-free telephone number is available at least 40 hours a week with an after-hours answering machine. All determinations that services are not Medically Necessary will be made by: 1) licensed Physicians; or 2) licensed, certified, registered or credentialed health care professionals who are in the same profession and same or similar specialty as the Provider who typically manages Your medical condition or disease or provides the health care service under review. We do not compensate or provide financial incentives to Our employees or reviewers for determining that services are not Medically Necessary. We have developed guidelines and protocols to assist Us in this process. Specific guidelines and protocols are available for Your review upon request. For more information, call the number on Your ID card or visit Our website at xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx.
Claims Review Methodology a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.
STATEWIDE ACHIEVEMENT TESTING When CONTRACTOR is an NPS, per implementation of Senate Bill 484, CONTRACTOR shall administer all Statewide assessments within the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (“CAASP”), Desired Results Developmental Profile (“DRDP”), California Alternative Assessment (“CAA”), achievement and abilities tests (using LEA-authorized assessment instruments), the Fitness Gram with the exception of the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (“ELPAC”) to be completed by the LEA, and as appropriate to the student, and mandated by XXX xxxxxxxx to LEA and state and federal guidelines. CONTRACTOR is subject to the alternative accountability system developed pursuant to Education Code section 52052, in the same manner as public schools. Each LEA student placed with CONTRACTOR by the LEA shall be tested by qualified staff of CONTRACTOR in accordance with that accountability program. XXX shall provide test administration training to CONTRACTOR’S qualified staff. CONTRACTOR shall attend LEA test training and comply with completion of all coding requirements as required by XXX.
Benefit Level Two Health Care Network Determination Issues regarding the health care networks for the 2017 insurance year shall be negotiated in accordance with the following procedures:
Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.
