Drug Utilization Review Program Sample Clauses

Drug Utilization Review Program. (A) The Contractor shall operate a Drug Utilization Review (DUR) program that includes prospective drug review, retrospective drug use review, and an educational program as required at 42 CFR 456, subpart K.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (9)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Drug Utilization Review Program. The MCO must have a process in place to conduct prospective and retrospective utilization review of prescriptions that is consistent with Medicare Part D drug utilization review standards (see 42 C.F.R. § 423.153). Prospective review should take place at the dispensing pharmacy’s point-of-sale (POS). The prospective review at the POS should compare the prescribed medication against previous drug history for drug-to-drug, interactions, ingredient duplication, therapeutic duplication, age or gender contraindications, drug-allergy contraindications, overutilization or underutilization, incorrect dosage, and high dose situations. The MCO’s retrospective review should monitor prescriber and contracted pharmacies for outlier activities. Retrospective reviews should also determine whether services were delivered as prescribed and consistent with the MCO’s payment policies and procedures. The MCO must provide a summary of the quarterly retrospective reviews, including outcomes, as described in UMCM Chapter 5.13.1, MCO Drug Utilization Review (DUR) Quarterly Report Template. The MCO’s Drug Utilization Review should specifically assess prescribing patterns for psychotropic medications as defined by Texas Family Code § 266.001(7). If the MCO identifies patterns outside of the MCO’s parameters for psychotropic medications, or if HHSC notifies the MCO of outlier prescribing patterns, then the MCO must conduct a peer-to-peer discussion on the appropriateness of the drug regimen with the prescriber. For children, the MCO must model its parameters on DFPS’s Psychotropic Medication Utilization Parameters for Xxxxxx Children. (See DFPS’s website for more information: xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxxxx.xx.xx/Child_Protection/Medical_Services/guide-psychotropic.asp).For adults, the MCO must base its parameters for psychotropic medications on approved compendia, such as peer-reviewed academic literature or nationally accepted guidelines.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (6)
Drug Utilization Review Program. The MCO must have a process in place to conduct prospective and retrospective utilization review of prescriptions that is consistent with Medicare Part D drug utilization review standards (see 42 C.F.R. 423.153). Prospective review should take place at the dispensing pharmacy’s point-of-sale (POS). The prospective review at the POS should compare the prescribed medication against previous drug history for drug-to-drug, ingredient duplication, therapeutic duplication, and high dose situations. The MCO’s retrospective review should monitor prescriber and contracted pharmacies for outlier activities. Retrospective reviews should also determine whether services were delivered as prescribed and consistent with the MCO’s payment policies and procedures. Prior to the Operational Start Date, HHSC will transmit a file with up to one year of medication history for Members with recent Medicaid eligibility, moving from the fee-for-service program. Outgoing MCOs will transfer this data for members moving to a new MCO.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
Drug Utilization Review Program. The MCO must have a process in place to conduct prospective and retrospective utilization review of prescriptions that is consistent with Medicare Part D drug utilization review standards (see 42 C.F.R. § 423.153). Prospective review should take place at the dispensing pharmacy's point-of-sale (POS). The prospective review at the POS should compare the prescribed medication against previous drug history for drug-to-drug, interactions, ingredient duplication, therapeutic duplication, age or gender contraindications, drug-allergy contraindications, overutilization or underutilization, incorrect dosage, and high dose situations. The MCO's retrospective review should monitor prescriber and contracted pharmacies for outlier activities. Retrospective reviews should also determine whether services were delivered as prescribed and consistent with the MCO's payment policies and procedures. The MCO must provide a summary of the quarterly retrospective reviews, including outcomes, as described in UMCM Chapter 5.13.1, "MCO Drug Utilization Review (DUR) Quarterly Report Template." Prior to the Operational Start Date, HHSC will transmit a file with up to one year of medication history for Members with recent Medicaid eligibility, moving from the fee-for-service program. Outgoing MCOs will transfer this data for members moving to a new MCO.
Sample 1Sample 2
Drug Utilization Review Program. The MCO must have a process in place to conduct prospective and retrospective utilization review of prescriptions that is consistent with Medicare Part D drug utilization review standards (see 42 C.F.R. 423.153). Prospective review should take place at the dispensing pharmacy’s point-of-sale (POS). The prospective review at the POS should compare the prescribed medication against previous drug history for drug-to-drug, ingredient duplication, therapeutic duplication, and high dose situations. The MCO’s retrospective review should monitor prescriber and contracted pharmacies for outlier activities. Retrospective reviews should also determine whether services were delivered as prescribed and consistent with the MCO’s payment policies and procedures.
Sample 1Sample 2
Drug Utilization Review Program. The CONTRACTOR shall maintain written policies and procedures governing its drug utilization review (DUR) program, in compliance with any applicable Federal Medicaid law.
Sample 1Sample 2

Related to Drug Utilization Review Program

  • Performance Review Where a performance review of an employee’s performance is carried out, the employee shall be given sufficient opportunity after the interview to read and review the performance review. Provision shall be made on the performance review form for an employee to sign it. The form shall provide for the employee’s signature in two (2) places, one (1) indicating that the employee has read and accepts the performance review, and the other indicating that the employee disagrees with the performance review. The employee shall sign in only one (1) of the places provided. No employee may initiate a grievance regarding the contents of a performance review unless the signature indicates disagreement. An employee shall, upon request, receive a copy of this performance review at the time of signing. An employee’s performance review shall not be changed after an employee has signed it, without the knowledge of the employee, and any such changes shall be subject to the grievance procedure of this Agreement. The employee may respond, in writing, to the performance review. Such response will be attached to the performance review.

  • Asset Representations Review Process Section 3.01 Asset Representations Review Notices and Identification of Review Receivables. On receipt of an Asset Representations Review Notice from the Seller according to Section 5.7 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the Asset Representations Reviewer will start an Asset Representations Review. The Servicer will provide the list of Review Receivables to the Asset Representations Reviewer promptly upon receipt of the Asset Representations Review Notice. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to start, and will not start, an Asset Representations Review until an Asset Representations Review Notice and the related list of Review Receivables is received. The Asset Representations Reviewer is not obligated to verify (i) whether the conditions to the initiation of the Asset Representations Review and the issuance of an Asset Representations Review Notice described in Section 7.6 of the Indenture were satisfied or (ii) the accuracy or completeness of the list of Review Receivables provided by the Servicer.

  • Performance Reviews The Employee will be provided with a written performance appraisal at least once per year and said appraisal will be reviewed at which time all aspects of the assessment can be fully discussed.

  • Joint Commercialization Committee As of the Effective Date, the Parties have established a joint commercialization committee (the “Joint Commercialization Committee” or the “JCC”), composed of up to [ * ] representatives of each Party, to monitor and discuss the Commercialization of Products at the operational level. Each JCC representative shall have knowledge and expertise in the commercialization of products similar to Products. The JCC shall in particular:

  • Commercialization Reports Throughout the term of this Agreement and during the Sell-Off Period, and within thirty (30) days of December 31st of each year, Company will deliver to University written reports of Company’s and Sublicensees’ efforts and plans to develop and commercialize the innovations covered by the Licensed Rights and to make and sell Licensed Products. Company will have no obligation to prepare commercialization reports in years where (a) Company delivers to University a written Sales Report with active sales, and (b) Company has fulfilled all Performance Milestones. In relation to each of the Performance Milestones each commercialization report will include sufficient information to demonstrate achievement of those Performance Milestones and will set out timeframes and plans for achieving those Performance Milestones which have not yet been met.

  • Review Scope The parties confirm that the Asset Representations Review is not responsible for (a) reviewing the Receivables for compliance with the representations and warranties under the Transaction Documents, except as described in this Agreement or (b) determining whether noncompliance with the representations and warranties constitutes a breach of the Eligibility Representations. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties confirm that the review is not designed to determine why an Obligor is delinquent or the creditworthiness of the Obligor, either at the time of any Asset Review or at the time of origination of the related Receivable. Further, the Asset Review is not designed to establish cause, materiality or recourse for any Test Fail (as defined in Section 3.05).

  • Development Plan document specifying the work program, schedule, and relevant investments required for the Development and the Production of a Discovery or set of Discoveries of Oil and Gas in the Contract Area, including its abandonment.

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