Federal Reports

In accordance with our Annual Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2019. the Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an analysis of the United States Capitol Police (USCP or the Department) wireless network and devices. OIG objectives were to determine if the Department (1) established adequate policies and procedures for the wireless network and devices, (2) established effective controls that would ensure the integrity of the wireless network and devices, and (3) complied with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance. Our scope included controls, processes, and operations from October 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019.

What We Looked AtWe performed a quality control review (QCR) on the single audit that KPMG LLP performed for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's (MBTA) fiscal year that ended June 30, 2018. During this period, MBTA expended approximately $353 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) grant programs. KPMG determined that DOT's major programs were the Federal Transit Cluster, the Highway Planning and Construction Cluster, and the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grants program.Our QCR objectives were to determine (1) whether the audit work complied with the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, and the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Guidance, and the extent to which we could rely on the auditors' work on DOT's major programs; and (2) whether MBTA's reporting package complied with the reporting requirements of the Uniform Guidance.What We FoundKPMG's audit work complied with the requirements of the Single Audit Act, the Uniform Guidance, and DOT's major programs. We found nothing to indicate that KPMG's opinion on each of DOT's major programs was inappropriate or unreliable. We did not identify any deficiencies in MBTA's reporting package that required correction and resubmission.

Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) controls to account for and monitor court-ordered restitutions.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a healthcare inspection in response to concerns from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel involving a Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 10 medical facility. A complainant alleged an ophthalmologist lacked training, provided substandard care, and failed to meet productivity expectations. Further, despite reported concerns, the Chief of Staff (COS) intended to reappoint the surgeon following the probationary period. The OIG substantiated the surgeon lacked adequate training to perform cataract and laser surgery as the surgeon did not satisfactorily complete an approved residency training program, was ineligible for board certification in ophthalmology, and did not meet the facility’s ophthalmologist hiring requirements. Several credentialing and privileging activities did not comply with Veterans Health Administration requirements and included inadequate primary source verification from foreign educational institutions and insufficient references attesting to the surgeon’s suitability to perform cataract surgeries. The surgeon was hired regardless. Staff concerns about the surgeon’s productivity, competency, and technical skills began within months of hire. The surgeon did not consistently demonstrate the skills to assure good outcomes, was unable to meet surgical productivity expectations, and surgery times exceeded norms. Retrospective clinical reviews by two VISN ophthalmologists reflected deficits. Despite these ongoing concerns, the COS endorsed the surgeon’s reappointment as the facility’s sole ophthalmologist. Multiple system and leadership failures allowed the surgeon to perform cataract surgery and clinic laser procedures without the required training and competency to do so. Once the surgeon’s deficits were identified, facility leaders were slow to respond. As a result, over a two year period, patients were placed at unnecessary risk for potential surgical complications. The surgeon’s employment was subsequently terminated. The OIG made five recommendations related to credentialing and privileging, professional practice evaluations, management of performance deficits, and the actions of the COS.