Federal Reports

The National Park Service (NPS) provided $12.7 million to the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office (PRSHPO) in fiscal year (FY) 2019 for the repair and restoration of historic sites damaged in 2017 by Hurricanes Irma and Maria. The PRSHPO received a considerably smaller amount in prior FYs—approximately $1.3 million combined for FYs 2017 and 2018. Due to the significant increase in funding in FY 2019, the NPS requested that we conduct a financial audit of the PRSHPO’s accounting system to ensure that it could properly account for the increased funding.Our audit found deficiencies in how labor expenses were recorded, tracked, and reported. We also found that the PRSHPO did not have a policy or procedures as an internal control for ensuring compliance with Federal statutes, relevant regulations, and terms and conditions of a Federal award as required by the Code of Federal Regulations.We make five recommendations to help the PRSHPO improve its accounting system. In response to our draft report, the NPS and the PRSHPO concurred with our findings and recommendations.

A prior OIG audit found that Medicare paid providers that had billed for medically unnecessary laboratory tests. Our preliminary review of Medicare claims identified providers that billed for direct-measurement, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol tests (direct LDL tests) and lipid panels (a blood test that reports four measures of lipids, including LDL cholesterol) for the same beneficiary on the same date of service; some of these providers billed the direct LDL test every time they billed the lipid panel. These claims were at risk of noncompliance with Medicare requirements because, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), billing for a direct LDL test in addition to a lipid panel, while sometimes medically necessary, should happen with only limited frequency.Our objective was to determine whether payments made to providers for direct LDL tests that were billed in addition to lipid panels for the same beneficiary on the same date of service complied with Medicare requirements.Our audit covered Medicare Part B payments of about $35 million for direct LDL tests that were billed in addition to lipid panels for the same beneficiary on the same date of service and that had dates of service from 2015 through 2019 (audit period).

The objective of our audit was to determine whether the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) dismissed discrimination complaints in accordance with applicable policies and procedures. Specifically, we determined whether (1) complaints initially dismissed as a result of the March 2018 revision to OCR’s Case Processing Manual (CPM) have been reopened and reviewed and (2) the revised complaint dismissal process was conducted as provided in OCR’s November 2018 revision to the CPM. We were unable to determine whether complaints that were dismissed because of the March 2018 CPM revisions have been reopened and reviewed. We found that OCR needs to improve its tracking related to the reopening of complaints previously dismissed under Section 108(t) of the March 2018 CPM. We found no indication that complaints were not being dismissed in accordance with revisions made to the November 2018 CPM. We also found that complaints dismissed because of the March 2018 CPM revisions were generally dismissed in accordance with policy. However, we did find that some complaints dismissed under Section 108(t) did not always meet the criteria for dismissal, some complaints that did meet the criteria for a dismissal under Section 108(t) were not always dismissed, and case files did not always contain required documentation. In addition, we found that several of the complaints dismissed were already in an active resolution phase and/or an investigation had been completed.

For our evaluation of USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) operations, the objectives were to (1) assess PTAB’s processes; (2) identify risk areas within PTAB; and (3) identify any internal and external challenges PTAB faces, and the significance and impacts of these challenges. We contracted with The MITRE Corporation (MITRE)—an independent firm—to perform this evaluation. Our office oversaw the progress of this evaluation to ensure that MITRE performed the evaluation in accordance with the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency’s Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation (December 2020) and contract terms. However, MITRE is solely responsible for the attached report and conclusions expressed in it.