Justice Agencies. We are not aware of any computer costs incurred by justice agencies in connection with this matching program.
Justice Agencies. We assume that by enabling the FFM and Administering Entities to identify individuals who are ineligible for enrollment in Medicaid, CHIP and Basic Health Programs, or receipt of APTC or CSRs earlier than if a paper-based system was used, the matching program reduces the number and amount of cases referred to the Departments of Justice. At this time we do not have enough information to quantify these benefits. • To the General Public: We believe that the use of a centralized, streamlined, electronic computer matching program increases the general public’s confidence in state health subsidy programs, given a manual process would be laughable given present-day electronic capabilities and the pervasiveness of electronic, real-time processes. To Clients: Data from the computer matching program are used to determine the amount of APTC for which an individual is eligible. Consumers who receive APTC must file an income tax return to reconcile the amount of APTC (based on projected household income) with the final premium tax credit for which the individual is eligible (based on actual household income). Some consumers, particularly those with liquidity constraints, may have trouble repaying improperly paid APTC. The benefit of avoiding improper payments of APTC to these consumers is not quantifiable. Additional benefits from the matching program to clients are also not quantifiable. By building public confidence in the state health subsidy programs, the computer matching program decreases the stigma of participating in a state health subsidy program.
Examples of Justice Agencies in a sentence
For example, we found that some students transitioning from 8th grade IM might need an additional trimester before joining the honors sequence; therefore, we could offer that first support class first term and allow for them to move into the honors in term 2, without missing the opportunity to be included in honors their freshman year.
As part of the changes put forth by P.A. 08-01 (later codified as CGS 54-142s), the CJIS Governing Board was charged with designing and implementing a comprehensive, State-wide system to facilitate the sharing of information between all Criminal Justice Agencies.
This certification must also be accompanied by a budget plan providing the details of this arrangement.All intelligence analyst training should be in accordance with Global’s Minimum Criminal Intelligence Training Standards for Law Enforcement and Other Criminal Justice Agencies in the United States, which outlines the minimum categories of training needed for intelligence analysts.
CCNY provides financial management on behalf of the LCJB, which is a combined Board made up of Criminal Justice Agencies.
TITLE II—IMPROVING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S GRANT PROGRAMS Subtitle A—Assisting Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Agencies Sec.
More Definitions of Justice Agencies
Justice Agencies. Because, as described in section III, data from this computer matching program is not used to recover improper payments, we are aware of no personnel costs to justice agencies associated with this computer matching program. For Clients: When a data match through the eligibility hub services identifies a data inconsistency, clients (consumers) are given an opportunity to produce documentation showing they are eligible for the applicable program. We believe that the centralized, electronic/real-time computer matching program produces more accurate verifications than either a manual system or a decentralized computer matching program, minimizing the amount of time clients must spend responding to inaccurate verifications. We have quantified that cost at $408 million, using the estimated time to gather and mail documents and the standard hourly wage to quantify an average client’s time. In addition to saving clients time, we believe the more efficient centralized computer matching program design will reduce the frustration experienced by clients in trying to verify their data. For Third Parties: Although no data was developed regarding costs to third parties, we would expect that overall the increased accuracy of data matches achieved through this computer matching agreement would result in lower personnel costs to third parties. For example Navigators who assist consumers with an applicant, would have lower costs than they would with either a manual process or a decentralized computer matching program. For the General Public: We are not aware of personnel costs to the general public associated with the matching program.
Justice Agencies. Not applicable, as these matching programs are not currently used to detect and recover past improper payments and therefore do not generate collection cases for justice agencies to investigate and prosecute. For Clients (Applicants/Consumers), and any Third Parties assisting them – Opportunity costs (time required to apply for coverage) are quantified as $610 million per year ($42.02 per application x 14.5 million consumers enrolled in QHPs). For the General Public – No data developed. Costs to the public (such as discouragement of legitimate potential participants from applying, and threats to privacy, Constitutional rights, and other legal rights) would be less significant in these matching programs than in other matching programs, because these matching programs are intended to support enrollments and are not currently used to detect and recover past improper payments.
Justice Agencies. Because, as described in section III, data from this computer matching program is not used to recover improper payments, we are aware of no personnel costs to justice agencies associated with this computer matching program.
Justice Agencies. N/A For Clients: N/A For Third Parties: U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) is the reimbursing federal agency. For the General Public: N/A BENEFITS
Justice Agencies. N/A For clients: N/A For Third Parties: N/A For the General Public: Recovering improper payments as a result of computer matching program will benefit taxpayers. APPENDIX B Previous Computer Matching Agreements between OCSE and State SNAP Agencies Previous matching agreements and renewals between the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and the state agencies administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are as follows:
Justice Agencies. N/A For clients: N/A For Third Parties: N/A For the General Public: Recovering improper payments as a result of computer matching program will benefit taxpayers. Appendix B Reference • Computer Matching Agreement, HHS Data Integrity Board Approval No.1505, effective July 13, 2015 through January 12, 2017; Amendment and Renewal, effective January 13, 2017 through January 12, 2018. • Computer Matching Agreement, HHS Data Integrity Board Approval No.1205, effective January 13, 2013 through July 12, 2014; Amendment and Renewal, effective July 13, 2014 through July 12, 2015. • Computer Matching Agreement, HHS Data Integrity Board Approval No. 1001, effective July 13, 2010 through January 12, 2012; Amendment and Renewal, effective January 13, 2012 through January 12, 2013. • Computer Matching Agreement, HHS Data Integrity Board Approval No. 0704, effective January 13, 2008 through July 12, 2009; Renewal, effective July 13, 2009 through July 12, 2010.
Justice Agencies. N/A For clients: N/A For Third Parties: N/A For the General Public: Recovering improper payments as a result of computer matching program will benefit taxpayers. APPENDIX B