Improving State Land Approval Processes: From Administrative Simplification to Competitive Allocation

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) was initially enacted as an administrative simplification to standardize electronic transmission of common administrative and financial transactions. The program also calls for implementation specifications regarding privacy and security standards to protect the confidentiality and integrity of individually identifiable health information or protected health information. The Affordable Care Act further expanded many of the protective provisions set forth by HIPAA. Since its implementation, healthcare organizations around the nation have invested billions of dollars and have cycled through numerous program attempts aimed at meeting these standards. This chapter reviews the process taken by one organization to review the privacy policy in place utilizing a maturity model, identify deficiencies, and lead change in order to heighten the maturity of the system. The authors conclude with reflection related to effectiveness of the process as well as implications for practice.

Download Full-text

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Administrative Simplification

10.1542/9781581104899-part06-health ◽

2010 ◽

pp. 143-144

Keyword(s):

Health Insurance ◽

Health Insurance Portability ◽

Administrative Simplification

Download Full-text

A weapons–testes trade-off in males is amplified in female traits

Proceedings of The Royal Society B Biological Sciences ◽

10.1098/rspb.2019.0906 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 286 (1908) ◽

pp. 20190906 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Christine W. Miller ◽

Paul N. Joseph ◽

Rebecca M. Kilner ◽

Zachary Emberts

Keyword(s):

Hind Limb ◽

Reproductive Function ◽

Developmental Timing ◽

Trade Off ◽

Future Studies ◽

Hind Limbs ◽

Trade Offs ◽

Competitive Allocation ◽

Experimental Comparisons ◽

Functional Grouping

Sexually selected weapons are assumed to trade off with traits related to ejaculates, such as testes. However, remarkably little is known about what governs resource allocation and why trade-offs are found in some cases and not others. Often-used models depict competitive allocation occurring within the functional grouping of traits (e.g. reproduction); however, other factors including tissue expense and developmental timing may influence allocation. Experimental comparisons of investment across the sexes have the potential to illuminate allocation rules, because the sexes do not always use traits for the same functions. Here, we capitalize upon a species where females have weapons–testes homologues. We report that a documented trade-off in investment between hind-limb weapons and testes in leaf-footed cactus bugs, Narnia femorata , is even more pronounced in female hind limbs and ovaries. Female hind limbs in this species do not share the clear reproductive function of male hind limbs; therefore, this trade-off spans trait functional groups. Such patterns of investment suggest that future studies of reproductive trade-offs should consider factors such as tissue expense and developmental timing.

Download Full-text

Architectural research and its enemies

Architectural Research Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s1359135510000527 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 14 (1) ◽

pp. 11-16 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Sebastian Macmillan

Keyword(s):

Higher Education ◽

Architectural Education ◽

Research Assessment ◽

Research Assessment Exercise ◽

Consultation Process ◽

Research Excellence Framework ◽

The Uk ◽

Architectural Research ◽

Competitive Allocation ◽

Support Research

Like the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) that preceded it, the UK government's proposed Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a means of allocating funding in higher education to support research. As with any method for the competitive allocation of funds it creates winners and losers and inevitably generates a lot of emotion among those rewarded or penalised. More specifically, the ‘winners’ tend to approve of the method of allocation and the ‘losers’ denigrate it as biased against their activities and generally unfair. An extraordinary press campaign has been consistently waged against research assessment and its methods by those involved in architectural education, which I will track over a decade and a half. What follows will question whether this campaign demonstrates the sophistication and superior judgment of those who have gone into print, or conversely whether its mixture of misinformation and disinformation reveals not just disenchantment and prejudice, but a naivety and a depth of ignorance about the fundamentals of research that is deeply damaging to the credibility of architecture as a research-based discipline. With the recent consultation process towards a new cycle of research assessment, the REF, getting under way, I aim to draw attention to the risk of repeating past mistakes.

Download Full-text