Federal Reports

A primary goal of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is to expand U.S. broadband Internet access and adoption. To help meet this goal, NTIA administers six broadband programs, including the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP). Our objective for this audit was to determine whether NTIA properly disbursed the federal funds provided for the TBCP. We reviewed awards made under NTIA’s first round of TBCP funding. Between September 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, NTIA awarded about $1.73 billion. Overall, we found that NTIA did not adequately design and implement the award process to ensure that TBCP funds were awarded only for eligible proposed service areas. For the awards we reviewed, we determined that NTIA did not (1) independently verify that grant recipients needed funding for broadband infrastructure deployment and (2) consistently document its process for reviewing TBCP applications. As a result of these issues, the TBCP’s fraud risk is higher, and NTIA could not provide assurance that TBCP awards were made to tribes that did not have access to broadband and actually needed the funds.

We found that the Government email address of a former BIE employee was spoofed to change the employee’s direct deposit information.

On February 29, 2024, an Amtrak sheet metal worker based in Miami, Florida, signed a civil settlement agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida, to pay a total of $18,750, including $16,537.34 in restitution. Our investigation found that the employee applied for and received two fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loans for an alleged automotive repair business in the amount of $5,746 each. The employee claimed to have made over $25,000 in gross revenues from his business that qualified him for the loan. We interviewed the employee who admitted that the business had no reported income in 2019 or 2020 and that the PPP loan applications were false.

On March 11, 2024, an Amtrak customer service representative based in Miami, Florida, signed a civil settlement agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida, and agreed to pay a total of $15,000, including $10,000 in restitution. Our investigation found that the employee falsified an application for a COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL), and he received a EIDL loan advance in the amount of $10,000 from the Small Business Administration. While the employee claimed the loan was for a t-shirt making business, when we interviewed the employee, he admitted that the loan application was fraudulent.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) evaluated the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA’s) attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnostic assessment practices, stimulant medication (stimulant) prescribing practices, training expectations, and policies. A diagnosis of ADHD must be established by a qualified provider based on diagnostic criteria. Stimulants are approved to treat ADHD and classified as controlled substances because of the risk for abuse. ADHD diagnoses and stimulant prescribing to treat adult ADHD have increased in recent decades.Prescribers insufficiently documented support for ADHD diagnoses corresponding to new stimulant prescriptions. Additionally, most electronic health records included documentation of a diagnostic interview, while fewer documented other assessment methods.The OIG found that prescribers inadequately assessed the risks and contraindications of stimulants prescribing, such as cardiac risks and urine toxicology testing. Prescribers assessed risks through the prescription drug monitoring program queries consistent with VHA expectations of 75 percent for new and 95 percent for active controlled substance prescriptions. The OIG would expect the query goal for new controlled substance prescriptions to meet or exceed the goal established for active prescriptions.The OIG found deficiencies in prescribers’ reported ADHD diagnostic and stimulant-prescribing training and knowledge. Among survey respondents, 13 percent of mental health and 65 percent of primary care respondents reported being somewhat or not knowledgeable about prescribing stimulant medication for the treatment of ADHD. The OIG determined that VHA has no established policies or clinical practice guidance related to ADHD assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. The lack of ADHD-related policies may contribute to limited awareness of clinical expectations and resources.The OIG made five recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health related to diagnostic assessment, assessment of risks and contraindications, prescription drug monitoring program goals, the referral process for complex mental health conditions, and ADHD policy and clinical practice guidance.

This Office of Inspector General (OIG) Comprehensive Healthcare Inspection Program report describes the results of a focused evaluation of the quality of care delivered in the inpatient and outpatient settings of the VA Northern Indiana Health Care System, which includes the Fort Wayne and Marion VA Medical Centers, multiple outpatient clinics in Indiana, and an outpatient clinic in Ohio. This evaluation focused on five key operational areas:• Leadership and organizational risks• Quality, safety, and value• Medical staff privileging• Environment of care• Mental health (suicide prevention initiatives)The OIG issued 10 recommendations for improvement in three areas:1. Medical staff privileging• Focused Professional Practice Evaluation time frames• Privileges based on Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation activities2. Environment of care• Corrugated containers• Clean and free of dust and soiling• Clean patient care areas• Expired commercial products• Clean and dirty equipment storage• Walls allow thorough cleaning• Inpatient Mental Health Unit over-the-door alarm testing3. Mental health• Comprehensive Suicide Risk Evaluation completion

We contracted with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), an independent firm, to perform this evaluation. Our office oversaw the evaluation’s progress to ensure that IDA performed it 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, IDA is solely responsible for the attached report and the conclusions expressed in it. The evaluation objective was to determine whether NOAA Fisheries grantees and subrecipients accounted for and expended pandemic relief funds provided under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and subsequent funding authorizations in accordance with federal laws and regulations. IDA found that (1) a dashboard helped NOAA monitor execution progress of most funding; however, NOAA had little to no oversight of CAA funding for the Tribes; (2) some states and territories employed more rigorous processes and internal controls to identify potential incorrect payments; and (3) some states, Tribes, and territories were slower to distribute funds and less effective at targeting fishery participants with greater than 35 percent loss.