Claim Reviews Sample Clauses

Claim Reviews a. Retrospective reviews on opioid prescriptions exceeding state defined limitations on an ongoing basis.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Claim Reviews. A review by the Reinsurer along with its claims paying Designee of the underwriting of a particular risk must be based on the Underwriting Guidelines of the Company. Further, the review may include facts that should have been known as a result of diligent inquiry so long as, based upon the known facts, a reasonably prudent underwriter would have been expected to make further inquiry. If, as part of examining a claim in accordance with Article 8, “Death Claims”, or inspecting the Company’s records in accordance with Article 16, “Inspection of Records”, the Reinsurer or its claims paying Designee finds that the underwriting assessment of a Policy was not consistent with the Underwriting Guidelines and/or the Prudent Underwriter Standard, the remedy will be a retroactive adjustment of any premiums and considerations, with interest. The Reinsurer, along with its claims paying Designee, shall not deny the claim payment or rescind coverage unless it assesses the risk in question as uninsurable.
Claim Reviews. For each claim selected in the first and second stage, the associated MDS and the medical record documentation supporting the MDS will be reviewed. The review process shall entail an evaluation of the MDS and verification that each entry that affects the RUG code outcome for the MDS is supported by the medical record for the corresponding period of time consistent with the assessment reference date ("ARD") specified on the MDS. In addition, data from the MDS will be re-entered into Beverly's Grouper (MDS data entry software program) to verify that the correct RUG code assignment was properly assigned on the UB-92. A financial error will be logged if there is insufficient support for an MDS data point(s) that results in a downward change in RUG assignment that would result in an overpayment.
Claim Reviews. The CIPF shall establish within its Coverage Policies a fair and reasonable internal claim review process whereby customer claims that are not accepted for payment by the CIPF staff or by an appointed committee shall be reconsidered by the Board of Governors or a review panel if requested by the Customer or CIPF staff. The Coverage Policies shall include criteria established by the Board of Governors for the selection of the review panel members.

Related to Claim Reviews

  • 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.

  • Title Review Seller shall be obligated to clear any and all encumbrances of title of an ascertainable monetary amount (“Seller Liens”), which Seller’s Liens Seller shall cause to be satisfied and or released at or prior to Closing (with Seller having the right to apply the Purchase Price or a portion thereof for such purpose). Notwithstanding the foregoing, prior to the Due Diligence Date, Purchaser shall give notice (“Purchaser’s Title Notice”) to Seller of the existence of any encumbrances and defects in title to which Purchaser objects and that are not Permitted Encumbrances (“Title Objections”). Seller shall, within five (5) business days from receipt of Purchaser’s Title Notice, notify Purchaser of those Title Objections that Seller elects not to attempt to remove or correct, provided that failure of Seller to give said notice shall be deemed to mean that Seller shall remove or correct all of Purchaser’s Title Objections. In the event Seller elects to attempt to remove or correct Title Objections(s) and by the later of the Due Diligence Date or the date which is thirty (30) business days following Seller’s receipt of Purchaser’s Title Notice, Seller has not arranged for removal or correction of said Title Objections, then Purchaser shall either (i) terminate this Agreement in which event the Deposit shall be returned to Purchaser and the parties hereto shall have no further rights or obligations hereunder, except for rights and obligations which, by their terms, survive the termination hereof, or (ii) accept the condition of the title to the Property as it then is, without diminution of the Purchase Price. If Purchaser fails to elect (i) above, then Purchaser shall be deemed to have elected (ii) above. Encumbrances and defects to title that are not included in Purchaser’s Title Objections and those Title Objections that are accepted pursuant to this subsection shall be deemed to be Permitted Encumbrances. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, Seller’s Liens shall not be deemed Permitted Encumbrances. Recording fees for recording documents to discharge Title Objections and Seller’s Liens shall be borne by Seller.

  • Contract Review Agent shall have reviewed all material contracts of Borrowers including, without limitation, leases, union contracts, labor contracts, vendor supply contracts, license agreements and distributorship agreements and such contracts and agreements shall be satisfactory in all respects to Agent;

  • Claim Decision Upon receipt of such claim, the Plan Administrator shall respond to such claimant within ninety (90) days after receiving the claim. If the Plan Administrator determines that special circumstances require additional time for processing the claim, the Plan Administrator can extend the response period by an additional ninety (90) days for reasonable cause by notifying the claimant in writing, prior to the end of the initial ninety (90) day period, that an additional period is required. The notice of extension must set forth the special circumstances and the date by which the Plan Administrator expects to render its decision. If the claim is denied in whole or in part, the Plan Administrator shall notify the claimant in writing of such denial. The Plan Administrator shall write the notification in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant. The notification shall set forth:

  • Periodic Reviews During January of each year during the term hereof, the Board of Directors of the Company shall review Executive's Annual Salary, bonus, stock options, and additional benefits then being provided to Executive. Following each such review, the Company may in its discretion increase the Annual Salary, bonus, stock options, and benefits; however, the Company shall not decrease such items during the period Executive serves as an employee of the Company. Prior to November 30th of each year during the term hereof, the Board of Directors of the Company shall communicate in writing the results of such review to Executive.

  • Attorney Review The Purchaser acknowledges that Purchaser has had the opportunity to consult with its legal counsel regarding the Agreement and that accordingly the terms of the Agreement are not to be construed against any party because that party drafted the Agreement or construed in favor of any Party because that Party failed to understand the legal effect of the provisions of the Agreement.

  • 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.

  • Periodic Review The General Counsel shall periodically review the Procurement Integrity Procedures with OSC personnel in order to ascertain potential areas of exposure to improper influence and to adopt desirable revisions for more effective avoidance of improper influences.

  • 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.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.