Submission of Draft Evaluation Design Sample Clauses

Submission of Draft Evaluation Design. The State must submit to CMS for approval a draft evaluation design for an overall evaluation of the Demonstration no later than 120 days after the effective date of the Demonstration. At a minimum, the draft design must include a discussion of the goals and objectives set forth in section II of these STCs, as well as the specific hypotheses that are being tested. The draft design must discuss the outcome measures that will be used in evaluating the impact of the Demonstration during the period of approval. It shall discuss the data sources and sampling methodology for assessing these outcomes. The draft evaluation design must include a detailed analysis plan that describes how the effects of the Demonstration must be isolated from other initiatives occurring in the State. The draft design must identify whether the State will conduct the evaluation, or select an outside contractor for the evaluation.
Sample 1Sample 2See All (9)
Submission of Draft Evaluation Design. The State must submit to CMS for approval a draft evaluation design for an overall evaluation of the Demonstration no later than 120 days after CMS’ approval of the Demonstration. At a minimum, the draft design must include a discussion of the goals and objectives set forth in section II of these STCs, as well as the specific hypotheses that are being tested, including those indicators that focus specifically on the target populations and the public health outcomes generated from the use of Demonstration funds. The draft design must discuss the outcome measures that will be used in evaluating the impact of the Demonstration during the period of approval. It must discuss the data sources and sampling methodology for assessing these outcomes. The draft evaluation design must include a detailed analysis plan that describes how the effects of the Demonstration must be isolated from other initiatives occurring in the State. The draft design must identify whether the State will conduct the evaluation, or select an outside contractor for the evaluation.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (7)
Submission of Draft Evaluation Design. The State must submit to CMS for approval a draft evaluation design for an overall evaluation of the Demonstration no later than 120 days after the effective date of the Demonstration. At a minimum, the draft design must include a discussion of the goals and objectives set forth in Section II of these STCs, as well as the specific hypotheses that are being tested. The draft design must discuss the outcome measures that will be used in evaluating the impact of the Demonstration during the period of approval. It shall discuss the data sources and sampling methodology for assessing these outcomes. The draft evaluation design must include a detailed analysis plan that describes how the effects of the Demonstration must be isolated from other initiatives occurring in the State. The draft design must identify whether the State will conduct the evaluation, or select an outside contractor for the evaluation. The State shall ensure that the draft evaluation design will address the following evaluation questions: 1. How many HIP participants reach their $300,000 annual benefit limit each year? How do these individuals meet their health care needs during the period of exhaustion of their benefit and the beginning of the next coverage term? 2. How many HIP participants reach their $1,000,000 lifetime benefit maximum? How do they go about meeting their health care needs after their HIP benefits are exhausted? 3. What are the consequences of limiting participants’ ability to switch plans after they have made an initial POWER Account contribution? What percentage of HIP applicants are auto-assigned to an MCO? 4. How many enrollees are reassigned from HIP MCOs each year to ESP? How many are reassigned from ESP to a HIP MCO? 5. What percentage of the potentially eligible population enrolls in HIP? How does the percentage vary by major population subgroups (HIP Caretakers, HIP Adults) and income level? 6. What are the consequences of requiring HIP participants with family income less than 150 percent of the FPL to pay monthly premiums? How many of these participants fail to make their first POWER Account contribution? How many of these participants are disenrolled for failure to pay their premiums? 7. To what extent has HIP impacted the uninsurance rate in Indiana? 8. To what extent has HIP reduced uncompensated care provided by Indiana’s federally funded health clinics? 9. How many enrollees exhaust their POWER Account each year? How many enrollees are able to roll-over a ...
Sample 1Sample 2See All (5)
Submission of Draft Evaluation Design. The State shall submit to CMS for approval, within 120 days from the award of the Demonstration, a draft evaluation design. At a
Sample 1
Submission of Draft Evaluation Design. The State shall submit to CMS for approval, within 120 days from the award of the Demonstration, a draft evaluation design. At a minimum, the draft design must include a discussion of the goals, objectives, and specific hypotheses that are being tested, including those that focus specifically on the target populations for the Demonstration. The draft design must discuss the outcome measures that shall be used in evaluating the impact of the Demonstration during the period of approval, particularly among the target population. It shall discuss the data sources and sampling methodology for assessing these outcomes. The draft evaluation design must include a detailed analysis plan that describes how the effects of the Demonstration shall be isolated from other initiatives occurring in the State. The draft design must identify whether the State will conduct the evaluation, or select an outside contractor for the evaluation. a. The State shall ensure that the draft evaluation design will address the following evaluation questions and topics: How successful has the Demonstration been in: i. Preserving access to primary and behavioral health care; ii. Sustaining and advancing a community-based, medical home model of health care delivery; and iii. Evolving primary and behavioral health care access restored by PCASG and preserved by the Demonstration to facilitate financial sustainability through diverse means of financing, including but not limited to Medicaid, CHIP, and other payor sources as the revenue base. b. To what extent has the Demonstration reduced the rate of Medicaid or CHIP eligible, but uninsured, children served by Demonstration providers? c. What lessons has the State learned from the Demonstration regarding the behavioral health care needs of the low-income adult population to be eligible for enrollment in Medicaid or the State’s Health Benefit Exchange in 2014? d. To what extent has the State met the milestones listed in section VII?
Sample 1
Submission of Draft Evaluation Design. The State must submit to CMS for approval, within 120 days from the award of the Demonstration extension, a draft evaluation design update. At a minimum, the draft design update must include a discussion of the goals, objectives and specific hypotheses that are being tested, including those that focus specifically on target populations for the Demonstration. The draft design must discuss the outcome measures that will be used in evaluating the impact of the Demonstration during the period of approval. The evaluation must include a survey of participating employers and employees to determine satisfaction levels with the program. It must discuss the data sources and sampling methodology for assessing these outcomes. The draft evaluation design must include a detailed analysis plan that describes how the effects of the Demonstration shall be isolated from other initiatives occurring in the State. Specifically, the State must identify the applicable effects of HWBP on the access to care, quality and efficiency of care, benefits associated with care, and the cost of care. The draft design must identify whether the State will conduct the evaluation, or select an outside contractor for the evaluation.
Sample 1
Submission of Draft Evaluation Design. The state must submit a Draft Evaluation Design for an overall evaluation of the demonstration to CMS for review and approval within 120 days of CMS approval of the demonstration. At a minimum, the Draft Evaluation Design must include the specific research questions and hypotheses that are being tested, as outlined in Section II of the STCs and in STC 58(a). Addressing the research questions identified in these STCs will require a mix of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. It must also include: a description of the proposed baseline and comparison groups, as well as the methodologies for drawing population samples; qualitative and quantitative process, improvement, and outcome measures; and a discussion of data sources, including relevant enrollment systems, health information technology, claims processing systems, and encounter data systems. The state should describe which systems will be used as their sources of, and the frequency by which they will collect, the relevant data. The state must also provide a detailed analysis plan that describes the statistical methods that will be employed to isolate the effects of the demonstration from other initiatives occurring in the state. The Draft Evaluation Design must describe the state’s process to contract with an independent evaluator. In addition to any qualitative analysis, the evaluation must be based on a quasi-experimental design. Baseline and comparison groups must be established for both AFDC-related (TANF- related) and SSI-related beneficiaries. In addition, the AFDC-related and SSI-related populations must be further stratified by qualifying condition. Sampling and analytical methodologies must take into account the counties, delivery system, and period of enrollment. In its review of the Draft Evaluation Design, CMS reserves the right to request additional levels of analysis.
Sample 1
Submission of Draft Evaluation Design. A draft evaluation design report must be submitted to CMS for approval within 120 days from the award of the Demonstration extension. At a minimum, the evaluation design should include a detailed analysis plan that describes how the effects of the Demonstration will be isolated from those of other initiatives occurring in the State. The evaluation must include an analysis of the costs and benefits of the utilization of point-of-service eligibility. The report should also include an integrated presentation and discussion of the specific hypotheses (including those that focus specifically on the target population for the Demonstration) that are being tested. The report will also discuss the outcome measures that will be used in evaluating the impact of the Demonstration, particularly among the target population. It will also discuss the data sources and sampling methodology for assessing these outcomes. The State must implement the evaluation design and report its progress in each of the Demonstration’s quarterly and annual reports.
Sample 1
Submission of Draft Evaluation Design. A draft evaluation design report must be submitted to CMS for approval within 120 days from the award of the Demonstration. At a minimum, the evaluation design should include a detailed analysis plan that describes how the effects of the Demonstration will be isolated from those of other initiatives occurring in the State. The report should also include an integrated presentation and discussion of the specific hypotheses (including those that focus specifically on the target population for the Demonstration) that are being tested. The report will also discuss the outcome measures that will be used in evaluating the impact of the Demonstration, particularly among the target population. It will also discuss the data sources and sampling methodology for assessing these outcomes. The State must implement the evaluation design and report its progress in each of the Demonstration’s quarterly and annual reports. The evaluation design must be based on a quasi-experimental design. In addition, the experimental and control groups must exhibit baseline equivalence on the following characteristics: (1) the parent or baby’s race and ethnicity; and (2) socioeconomic status. The State must ensure that the draft evaluation design will address the following evaluation questions:
Sample 1

Related to Submission of Draft Evaluation Design

  • 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.

  • Submission of Agreement Submission of this Lease to Tenant for signature does not constitute a reservation of space or an option to acquire a right of entry. This Lease is not binding or effective until execution by and delivery to both Landlord and Tenant.

  • SUBMISSION OF THE MONTHLY MI REPORT 4.1 The completed MI Report shall be completed electronically and returned to the Authority by uploading the electronic MI Report computer file to MISO in accordance with the instructions provided in MISO. 4.2 The Authority reserves the right (acting reasonably) to specify that the MI Report be submitted by the Supplier using an alternative communication to that specified in paragraph 4.1 above such as email. The Supplier agrees to comply with any such instructions provided they do not materially increase the burden on the Supplier.

  • NOTIFICATIONS AND SUBMISSION OF REPORTS Unless otherwise stated in writing after the Effective Date, all notifications and reports required under this IA shall be submitted to the following entities: Administrative and Civil Remedies Branch Office of Counsel to the Inspector General Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Xxxxx Building, Room 5527 000 Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, XX Xxxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Facsimile: (000) 000-0000 LFAC: Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxx, DPM 0000 Xxxxxxxxxxx Xx. X-000 Xxxxxxxxx, XX 00000 Telephone: (000) 000-0000 Email: xx.xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx Unless otherwise specified, all notifications and reports required by this IA may be made by electronic mail, overnight mail, hand delivery, or other means, provided that there is proof that such notification was received. Upon request by OIG, LFAC may be required to provide OIG with an additional copy of each notification or report required by this IA in OIG’s requested format (electronic or paper).

  • SUBMISSION OF BID Bids may be submitted via the electronic submission portal at: xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx/buyer/691, or in the Procurement Division; Internal Operations Centre II, 000 X. Xxxxx Xxxxxx; 0xx Xxxxx, Xxxxxxx, XX 00000, prior to the submission deadline. Bids will be opened per the public meeting notice. If bid will be mailed or hand delivered, ensure it is secured in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: A. Invitation for Bids Number B. Due Date of Bid Submittal C. Name of Bidder

  • SUBMISSION OF REPORTS All applicable study reports shall be submitted in preliminary form for approval by the State before a final report is issued. The State's comments on the Engineer's preliminary report must be addressed in the final report.

  • Updated Information Submission by Developer The updated information submission by the Developer, including manufacturer information, shall occur no later than one hundred eighty (180) Calendar Days prior to the Trial Operation. Developer shall submit a completed copy of the Large Generating Facility data requirements contained in Appendix 1 to the Standard Large Facility Interconnection Procedures. It shall also include any additional information provided to Connecting Transmission Owner for the Interconnection Facilities Study. Information in this submission shall be the most current Large Generating Facility design or expected performance data. Information submitted for stability models shall be compatible with NYISO standard models. If there is no compatible model, the Developer will work with a consultant mutually agreed to by the Parties to develop and supply a standard model and associated information. If the Developer’s data is different from what was originally provided to Connecting Transmission Owner and NYISO pursuant to an Interconnection Study Agreement among Connecting Transmission Owner, NYISO and Developer and this difference may be reasonably expected to affect the other Parties’ facilities or the New York State Transmission System, but does not require the submission of a new Interconnection Request, then NYISO will conduct appropriate studies to determine the impact on the New York State Transmission System based on the actual data submitted pursuant to this Article 24.3. Such studies will provide an estimate of any additional modifications to the New York State Transmission System, Connecting Transmission Owner’s Attachment Facilities or System Upgrade Facilities or System Deliverability Upgrades based on the actual data and a good faith estimate of the costs thereof. The Developer shall not begin Trial Operation until such studies are completed. The Developer shall be responsible for the cost of any modifications required by the actual data, including the cost of any required studies.

  • Updated Information Submission by Interconnection Customer The updated information submission by the Interconnection Customer, including manufacturer information, shall occur no later than one hundred eighty (180) Calendar Days prior to the Trial Operation. The Interconnection Customer shall submit a completed copy of the Electric Generating Unit data requirements contained in Appendix 1 to the LGIP. It shall also include any additional information provided to the Participating TO and the CAISO for the Interconnection Studies. Information in this submission shall be the most current Electric Generating Unit design or expected performance data. Information submitted for stability models shall be compatible with the Participating TO and CAISO standard models. If there is no compatible model, the Interconnection Customer will work with a consultant mutually agreed to by the Parties to develop and supply a standard model and associated information.

  • Auction Schedule; Method of Submission of Orders (a) The Funds and the Auction Agent shall conduct Auctions for each series of Preferred Shares in accordance with the schedule set forth below. Such schedule may be changed at any time by the Auction Agent with the consent of the Fund, which consent shall not be withheld unreasonably. The Auction Agent shall give notice of any such change to BD. Such notice shall be received prior to the first Auction Date on which any such change shall be effective. Time Event ---- ----- By 9:30 A.M. Auction Agent advises the Funds and the Broker-Dealers of the Maximum Rate as set forth in Section 3.2(a) hereof.

  • BID SUBMISSION All Bids are to be packaged, sealed and submitted to the location stated in the Bid Specifications. Bidders are solely responsible for timely delivery of their Bids to the location set forth in the Bid Specifications prior to the stated Bid opening date/time. A Bid return envelope, if provided with the Bid Specifications, should be used with the Bid sealed inside. If the Bid response does not fit into the envelope, the Bid envelope should be attached to the outside of the sealed box or package with the Bid inside. If using a commercial delivery company that requires use of their shipping package or envelope, Bidder’s sealed Bid, labeled as detailed below, should be placed within the shipper’s sealed envelope to ensure that the Bid is not prematurely opened. All Bids must have a label on the outside of the package or shipping container outlining the following information: “BID ENCLOSED (bold print, all capitals) • Group Number • IFB or RFP Number • Bid Submission date and time” In the event that a Bidder fails to provide such information on the return Bid envelope or shipping material, the receiving entity reserves the right to open the shipping package or envelope to determine the proper Bid number or Product group, and the date and time of Bid opening. Bidder shall have no claim against the receiving entity arising from such opening and such opening shall not affect the validity of the Bid or the procurement. Notwithstanding the receiving agency’s right to open a Bid to ascertain the foregoing information, Bidder assumes all risk of late delivery associated with the Bid not being identified, packaged or labeled in accordance with the foregoing requirements. All Bids must be signed by a person authorized to commit the Bidder to the terms of the Bid Documents and the content of the Bid (offer).