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.
Review of Decision Within sixty (60) days after the Secretary’s receipt of a request for review, he or she will review the Company’s determination. After considering all materials presented by the Claimant, the Secretary will render a written opinion, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the Claimant, setting forth the specific reasons for the decision and containing specific references to the pertinent provisions of this Agreement on which the decision is based. If special circumstances require that the sixty (60) day time period be extended, the Secretary will so notify the Claimant and will render the decision as soon as possible, but no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after receipt of the request for review.
Review The practitioner reviews the treatment plan and discusses, when appropriate, case circumstances and management options with the attending (or referring) physician. The reviewer consults with the requesting physician when more clarity is needed to make an informed coverage decision. The reviewer may consult with board certified physicians from appropriate specialty areas to assist in making determinations of coverage and/or appropriateness. All such consultations will be documented in the review text. If the reviewer determines that the admission, continued stay or service requested is not a covered service, a notice of non-coverage is issued. Only a physician, behavioral health practitioner (such as a psychiatrist, doctoral-level clinical psychologist, certified addiction medicine specialist), dentist or pharmacist who has the clinical expertise appropriate to the request under review with an unrestricted license may deny coverage based on medical necessity.
Review and Appeal 1. Each Party shall ensure that the importers in its territory have access to administrative review within the customs administration that issued the decision subject to review or, where applicable, the higher authority supervising the administration and/or judicial review of the determination taken at the final level of administrative review, in accordance with the Party's domestic law.
2. The decision on appeal shall be given to the appellant and the reasons for such decision shall be provided in writing.
3. The level of administrative review may include any authority supervising the customs administration of a Party.
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.
Decision Making The Joint Development Committee and Joint Commercialization Committee shall each act by unanimous agreement of its members, with each Party having one vote. If the Joint Development Committee or Joint Commercialization Committee, after [* * *] (or such other period as the Parties may otherwise agree) of good faith efforts to reach a unanimous decision on an issue, fails to reach such a unanimous decision, then either Party may refer such issue to the Executive Officers. Such Executive Officers shall meet promptly thereafter and shall negotiate in good faith to resolve the issues. If Executive Officers cannot resolve such issue within [* * *] of referral of such issue to the Executive Officers, the resolution of such issue shall be as follows:
(a) if such issue properly originated at the Joint Development Committee, determined by the Developing Party of the relevant Licensed Compound or Licensed Product at issue; provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing:
(i) if Acceleron is the Developing Party and such issue relates to (x) the approval of an Additional Development Disease, or (y) matters under Section 5.6.3(d), then such issue shall be determined by [* * *];
(ii) regardless of which Party is the Developing Party, such issue shall be determined by [* * *] following the earliest of: (x) [* * *], and (y) the Joint Development Committee’s decision to go forward with a Phase 3 Clinical Trial of the relevant Licensed Compound or Licensed Product; provided that [* * *] shall continue to determine any issues that relate to the budget for and the conduct of the [* * *]; and
(iii) regardless of which Party is the Developing Party, such issue shall be determined by [* * *] following the earliest of: (x) [* * *], and (y) the occurrence of any [* * *]; and
(b) if such issue properly originated at the Joint Commercialization Committee, determined by Celgene. Notwithstanding the foregoing, none of Acceleron, Celgene, the Joint Development Committee or the Joint Commercialization Committee may make any decision inconsistent with the express terms of this Agreement without the prior written consent of each Party.
Decision on Review No later than sixty (60) days (forty-five (45) days with respect to a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled) following the receipt of the written application for review, the Claims Administrator or the Appeals Fiduciary, as applicable, shall submit its decision on the review in writing to the claimant involved and to his representative, if any, unless the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary determines that special circumstances (such as the need to hold a hearing) require an extension of time, to a day no later than one hundred twenty (120) days (ninety (90) days with respect to a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled) after the date of receipt of the written application for review. If the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary determines that the extension of time is required, the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary shall furnish to the claimant written notice of the extension before the expiration of the initial sixty (60) day (forty-five (45) days with respect to a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled) period. The extension notice shall indicate the special circumstances requiring an extension of time and the date by which the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary expects to render its decision on review. In the case of a decision adverse to the claimant, the Claims Administrator or Appeals Fiduciary shall provide to the claimant written notice of the denial. Any such notice of an adverse benefit determination shall be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant (and with respect to a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled, be provided in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner) and shall include:
(1) the specific reason or reasons for the adverse benefit determination;
(2) specific references to the pertinent provisions of this Agreement on which the adverse benefit determination is based;
(3) a statement that the claimant is entitled to receive, upon request and free of charge, reasonable access to, and copies of, all documents, records, and other information relevant to the claimant’s claim for benefits;
(4) a statement of the claimant’s right to bring a civil action under Section 502(a) of ERISA following the adverse benefit determination on review;
(5) a statement regarding the availability of other voluntary alternative dispute resolution options;
(6) in the case of a claim for benefits due to Executive being Permanently Disabled:
(A) a description of any contractual limitations period that applies to the claimant’s right to bring a civil action under Section 502(a) of ERISA, including the calendar date on which the contractual limitations period expires for the claim;
(B) a discussion of the decision, including an explanation of the basis for disagreeing with or not following: the views presented by the claimant to the Agreement of health care professionals treating the claimant and vocational professionals who evaluated the claimant, the views of medical or vocational professionals whose advice was obtained on behalf of the Agreement in connection with a claimant’s adverse benefit determination, without regard to whether the advice was relied upon in making the determination, and a disability determination regarding the claimant presented by the claimant to the Agreement made by the Social Security Administration;
(C) if the adverse benefit determination is based on a medical necessity or experimental treatment or similar exclusion or limit, either an explanation of the scientific or clinical judgment for the determination, applying the terms of the Agreement to the claimant’s medical circumstances, or a statement that such explanation will be provided free of charge upon request; and
(D) the specific internal rules, guidelines, protocols, standards or other similar criteria of the Agreement relied upon in making the adverse determination, or a statement that such rules, guidelines, protocols, standards or other similar criteria do not exist. The Claims Administrator has the discretionary authority to determine all interpretative issues arising under this Agreement and the interpretations of the Claims Administrator shall be final and binding upon Executive or any other party claiming benefits under this Agreement.
Initial Decision Maker The Architect will serve as the Initial Decision Maker pursuant to Article 15 of AIA Document A201–2017, unless the parties appoint below another individual, not a party to this Agreement, to serve as the Initial Decision Maker.
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
Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.
