The Privacy Rule requires covered entities to develop and implement reasonable policies and procedures to verify the identity of any person who requests PHI, as well as the authority of the person to have access to the information if the identity or authority of the person is not already known.
The Privacy Rule generally requires covered entities to take reasonable steps to limit the use or disclosure of, and requests for, protected health information to the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended purpose.
The Minimum Necessary Standard, which can be found under the umbrella of the Privacy Rule, is a requirement that covered entities take all reasonable steps to see to it that protected health information (PHI) is only accessed to the minimum amount necessary to complete the tasks at hand.
Learn more about rule here:-
brainly.com/question/27033681
#SPJ4
Answer:
Novation
Explanation:
A Novation in a contract law or in any business law means to give the right of one party's obligation to the obligation of another party with the previous party's consent. It means replacing a party in a contract with a new party after the previous party has given her consent of replacement. The new party becomes the rightful owner of the contract and is responsible to the obligations.
In the given context, there is an novation agreement between Mary and Tina, when Tina replaces Mary with the obligations in the contract with the prior consent from to Mary as Mary has to move to other place because of work and does not wants to buy the house.
Hence the answer is --
Novation
Answer: True
=================================================
Explanation:
The first amendment prohibits congress from making any law to prohibit free speech, so that means the federal government isn't allowed to restrict speech. However, there are exceptions such as speech to cause a riot, insurrection, obscenities on public airwaves, etc. all of which are not allowed.
In contrast, a private company like Twitter has the choice whether or not to allow or ban a certain post. The first amendment of the constitution does not apply to companies such as this one. On one hand, you could argue that such restriction is a bad thing because it limits speech; but you could also argue that if the government forced companies like Twitter to do a certain action, then it restricts their freedom.
For privately owned social media companies, their platform is something they solely own 100%, meaning that the government does not own or control what goes on that platform. So this is another viewpoint as to why the first amendment doesn't apply to these companies.
In a slight bit of confusing terminology, a private company can be publicly owned. This means that the government doesn't control the company, but rather it's traded on the stock market. Those who own stock in the company are part owners of it. You would have to use the phrasing "government owned and government run" to indicate that the government has full control of such a platform.
Answer:
D. The scientific study of the biology of behavior and mental processes.
