Sentences with phrase «used by commenters»

I don't think the New York Times will let this continue if the language used by commenters devolves more and more.

Not exact matches

I only used baby bellas as the other mushrooms at the store looked suspect, and used the poultry seasoning as suggested by one of the commenters (just 3 of the required spices already combined in the same bottle.)

I used the turmeric paste guidelines given by a commenter.

«Thank you, Keep Losing», «God I Hope They Miss the Playoffs», «Get In The Lottery» are three of your recent subject titles (by the way, here at PTR we don't tend to use Subject titles, just FYI if you want to match the style of most commenters).

I found this article very interesting, my friend swears by the amber necklace on her 6 month old... like many commenters are saying, the one she uses is very short... not like in the images.

The second image displayed by a commenter is not safe for nap and is to be used for play, entertainment, soothing and neck strength exercise for as long as you might do tummy time or until the baby falls asleep at which point you would move them as soon as possible (once definitely asleep) to a sleep certified crib.

So, show some love to those faithful commenters by using this plugin.

First, the CTU and its backers are sure that the $ 665 million hole in the budget, that the school board intends to cover by draining its cash reserves, is easily plugged and in fact may be manufactured by CPS: «my biggest worry», said one commenter, «is that you use all of these reserve funds and you hit zero next year so that you use that rationale to say «we don't have any more money»».

The next comment left by «Larry1310» does not have the ectaco.com marker in the IP address, but the commenter did use the same exact email address as the one used by lovelyread (he obviously went home and posted that comment from a different computer).

I figured now would be the PERFECT TIME to use the KINDLE CountDown opportunity, especially given where I'm positioned on the interment on LinkedIn where I Own three groups and Moderate three more, Twitter, etc I'm also being interviewed next week by someone who has a very sizeable following, and where I'm one of the MOST FREQUENT commenter.

Since the interest rates used in the calculation of the D / E rates measure are conservatively low estimates of the actual debt payment made by students, we also disagree with the commenters who believe the D / E rates thresholds are too low because they are sensitive to interest rates.

The commenters stated that private loans are an expensive form of financing that is used by students attending for - profit institutions at twice the rate as students attending non-profit institutions and that, in some cases, for - profit institutions use private loans to evade the 90/10 provisions in section 487 (a)(24) of the HEA.

Several commenters expressed concern that entities importing dogs less than 6 months of age for resale could circumvent the new requirements by not providing an import permit and claiming the dogs are for personal use.

You started this with an unreferenced comment 4 days ago and you were questioned about it repeatedly by several commenters, but you didn't provide any answers until you looked at some of Patrick 027's links (note that there is a Patrick w / o numbers that posts, so it is helpful to use the correct name).

Over the next week or so, RC commenters, abetted by Real Climate moderator Eric Steig, used Hantemirov's criticism to launched one tirade after another against me: see page 4 and page 5.

Further, wrote Dinneen, several commenters referenced the article by Liska et al. in the Yale Journal of Industrial Ecology that showed lower direct carbon intensity values than the GREET model values used by ARB.

Yes, I am guilty of using a single anecdote with the nurse suicide, but that was meant to call attention to the circus of pranking mischief that the Aussie commenters have cultivated here by infiltrating their tribal influence.

Of course, by doing so, your honesty and credibility as a researcher / commenter will take a significant hit, especially if you attempt to use such methodology to make, or argue any point apart from the fact that it is possible to use data dishonestly.

On Australian TV, 3 days ago, Michael Mann stated that:» 1000 y ago, the PLANET was warmer by 1C» He is using what the Fake Skeptics promote, to cover up his shame = that makes half of the commenters on this blog (the fake Skeptics) to be» Mann's fig leafs»....

Commenters on Dezeen pointed to earlier work by Fabio Gramazio and Matthias Kohler of ETH Zurich, who used real brick for an installation at the Venice Biennale

By the way, thanks to all the commenters who gave me some good alternatives to using my own fairly week narration voice.

Generally speaking, any other ideas proposed by commenters that were inconsistent with the UN viewpoints were downplayed using various UN-based arguments and then rejected.

But other commenters (as well as this UVA law student) feel that laptop use harms other students who don't surf by breaking the flow of discourse in class and creating distraction.

Since «digital signature» is widely used to mean, as the last commenter says, electronic signatures produced by public key cryptography, the expression should ideally not be used as a generic synonym for any electronic signature.

Other commenters maintained that section 1179 of the Act means that the Act's privacy requirements do not apply to the request for, or the use or disclosure of, information by a covered entity with respect to payment: (a) For transferring receivables; (b) for auditing; (c) in connection with --(i) a customer dispute; or (ii) an inquiry from or to a customer; (d) in a communication to a customer of the entity regarding the customer's transactions payment card, account, check, or electronic funds transfer; (e) for reporting to consumer reporting agencies; or (f) for complying with: (i) a civil or criminal subpoena; or (ii) a federal or state law regulating the entity.

Comment: Some commenters argued that covered entities should not be required to distinguish between those uses and disclosures that are required by law and those that are permitted by law without authorization, because these distinctions may not always be clear and will vary across jurisdictions.

Comment: One commenter said that the minimum necessary standard would be impossible to implement with respect to information provided on its standard payment claim, which, it said, was used by pharmacies for concurrent drug utilization review and that was expected to be adopted by HHS as the national pharmacy payment claim.

Comment: One commenter pointed out that the preamble referred to the obligations of providers and did not use the term, «covered entity,» and thus created ambiguity about the obligations of health care providers who may be employed by persons other than covered entities, e.g., pharmaceutical companies.

Another commenter recommended allowing use or disclosure of psychotherapy notes by members of an integrated health care facility as well as the originator.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the rule apply only to the «disclosure» of protected health information by covered entities, rather than to both «use» and «disclosure.»

Finally, many commenters argued we should not require authorization for the use or disclosure of protected health information to market any health - related goods and services, even if those goods and services are offered by a third party.

Comment: A number of commenters urged that the provision permitting uses and disclosures required by other law be amended by deleting the last sentence which stated: «This paragraph does not apply to uses or disclosures that are covered by paragraphs (b) through (m) of this section.»

Several commenters further recommended that only the following uses and disclosures be permitted for research information unrelated to treatment without authorization: (1) For the oversight of the researcher or the research study; (2) for safety and efficacy reporting required by FDA; (3) for public health; (4) for emergency circumstances; or (5) for another research study.

These changes should resolve the concerns raised by commenters regarding conflicts with state laws that require consent, authorization, or other types of written legal permission for uses and disclosures of protected health information.

We reviewed the important purposes for which some commenters said government agencies needed protected health information, and we believe that most of those needs can be met through the other categories of permitted uses and disclosures without authorization allowed under the final rule, including provisions permitting covered entities to disclose information (subject to certain limitations) to government agencies for public health, health oversight, law enforcement, and otherwise as required by law.

Additionally, the commenter asked whether the privacy notice would need to contain these uses and disclosures and recommended that a general statement that these federal agencies would disclose protected health information when required by law be considered sufficient to meet the privacy notice requirements.

One commenter urged HHS to clarify that provision by a pharmacy to a patient of customized prescription drug information about the risks, benefits, and conditions of use of a prescription drug being dispensed is considered a treatment activity.

One commenter suggested that the Secretary modify the proposed regulation to allow IRBs or privacy boards to determine the duration of authorizations and the circumstances under which a research participant should be permitted to retroactively revoke his or her authorization to use data already collected by the researcher.

Response: Although we share the concern raised by commenters that the option for the documentation of privacy board approval for an alteration or waiver of authorization may perpetuate the unequal mechanisms of protecting the privacy of human research subjects for federally - funded versus publically - funded research, the final rule is limited by HIPAA to addressing only the use and disclosure of protected health information by covered entities, not the protection of human research subjects more generally.

Comment: Some commenters, in their support of the research exception, requested that HHS clarify in the final rule that protected health information obtained during the donation process of eyes and eye tissue could continue to be used or disclosed to or by eye banks for research purposes without an authorization and without IRB approval.

Comment: Some commenters suggested that the need to terminate contracts that had been breached would be particularly problematic when the contracts were with single - source business partners used by health care providers.

Comment: A few commenters asserted that the requirement to include a statement in which the patient acknowledged that information used or disclosed to any entity other than a health plan or health care provider may no longer be protected by federal privacy law would be inconsistent with existing protections implemented by IRBs under the Common Rule.

Comment: Some commenters argued that we could facilitate compliance by requiring the notice to include the proposed requirement that covered entities use and disclose only the minimum necessary protected health information.

Response: The commenters» estimates varied widely, and could not be used by the Department in revising its analysis because there was inadequate explanation of how the estimates were made.

Additional commenters who argued that the definition was too narrow raised the following concerns: the difference between «research» and «health care operations» is irrelevant from the patients» perspective, and therefore, the proposed rule should have required documentation of approval by an IRB or privacy board before protected health information could be used or disclosed for either of these purposes, and the proposed definition was too limited because it did not capture research conducted by non-profit entities to ensure public health goals, such as disease - specific registries.

Comment: One commenter recommended that when information from health records is provided to authorized external users, this information should be accompanied by a statement prohibiting use of the information for other than the stated purpose; prohibiting disclosure by the recipient to any other party without written authorization from the patient, or the patient's legal representative, unless such information is urgently needed for the patient's continuing care or otherwise required by law; and requiring destruction of the information after the stated need has been fulfilled.

These commenters were confused as to whether a particular use or disclosure had to be specifically addressed by another provision of the rule or simply within the scope of the one of the national priority purposes specified by proposed paragraphs (b) through (m).

Response: We agree with the arguments raised by these commenters, and thus, the final rule does not require contracts between covered entities and researchers as a condition of using or disclosing protected health information for research purposes without authorization.

A notice that stated only that the covered entity would make all disclosures required by law, as suggested by some of these commenters, would fail to inform individuals of the uses and disclosures of information about them that are permitted, but not required, by law.

Commenters used both terms to refer to the individual's giving permission for the use and disclosure of protected health information by any entity.