Level of Analysis. The following levels of analysis will be used, as indicated, for the required reports: 1. Individual Level - One report is required for each enrollee, e.g., one grievance record for each grievance, one record per hospital discharge. 2. Location Level - One report required for each nine-digit Medicaid provider number the contractor has under contract. 3. Contractor Level - One report is required for each seven-digit Medicaid provider number the contractor has under contract. Attachment I- 40 of 55 Contract No. 0000-0000-00 Example: ABC Health Plan, Medicaid Provider Number 1234567, operates three locations: ABC of Palm Beach (123456701), ABC of Indian River (123456702), and ABC of Xxxxxx (123456703). A plan level report would be summarized over all plans with the seven-digit Medicaid provider code (1234567). A location level report would have one report for each nine-digit provider number (123456701, 123456702, and 123456703). The following table summarizes the required data reporting for the project LEVEL OF REPORT NAME ANALYSIS FREQUENCY OF REPORT SUBMISSION MEDIA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enrollment, Disenrollment, and Location Monthly Asynchronous Cancellation Report for Transfer to Fiscal Payment Agent Disenrollment Summary Location Monthly Electronic mail or diskette Encounter Data Report Individual Quarterly, within 3 months of Electronic mail or the end of reporting period diskette Grievance Report Individual Monthly Electronic mail or diskette Financial Statements Contractor Quarterly, within 45 days of AHCA supplied template end of reporting period on diskette Audited Financial Contractor Annually, within 90 days of end Electronic mail or Statement of contractor's fiscal year diskette Minority Business Individual Monthly by the 15th Electronic mail Enterprise Contract Level Reporting
Level of Analysis country or industry The cross-country comparative study preceding our case studies (Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx and Arts 2008), which presented aggregated, quantita- tive data on convergence and its driving forces, may have underestimated the relevance of regulatory competition not only by omitting its role as a key motive behind international standard setting, but also by locating the analysis at the country level rather than the level of individual industry sectors. Our case studies suggest that within the OECD world, where all countries are parts of a global economy to a significant extent, the variation between countries in terms of their relative embeddedness in international economic relations is less revealing than the exposure of particular industries to international competition. Hence, France, which was categorised as a comparatively weakly embedded country, felt deeply Complex causation in cross-national policy convergence 281 affected by global trade in the automotive sector (see chapters 4 on lead in petrol and 5 on noise emissions of lorries). Similarly, Mexico adopted a soft reading of the precautionary principle in regulating the trade- sensitive policy domain of biotechnology, where the country saw future developmental potential.4 Although our cases deliver little evidence that economic benefits and modernisation chances enter the ‘calculus’ of industry, we observe divergent ‘national’ calculations of the costs of envi- ronmental regulations, which might be attributed to the distinct struc- tures of the industry. Hence, while the small direct costs of removing lead from petrol explain why the Netherlands despite its high share of petrol producing companies (and absence of a car industry) felt no pressure to resist strict standards, the costly indirect implications of the unleaded petrol regulation for the car industry motivated French resistance. The affected industry, of course, may be part of a larger industrial complex with potentially heterogeneous economic interests, on the one hand, and be a party in state–industry relations which vary from country to country, on the other. Two case studies in France suggest that we need to have knowledge of wider industrial linkages within a country to under- stand why stricter standards are accepted or not. As already mentioned, in the case of lead in petrol, not the oil refinery industry but the car indus- try exerted pressure to limit regulation of petrol. In the case of industrial discharge in surface wate...
