Federal Reports

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the Florida Department of Education (Florida) established and implemented systems of internal control that ensured (1) displaced student count data provided to the U.S. Department of Education (Department) were accurate and complete, (2) Temporary Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students (Emergency Impact Aid) program funds were appropriately allocated to local educational agencies (LEA), and (3) LEAs used Emergency Impact Aid program funds in accordance with applicable Federal requirements.We determined that Florida’s system of internal control over displaced student count data did not ensure that the data provided to the Department were accurate and complete because it did not always prevent or detect inaccurate displaced student counts LEAs reported. We determined that Florida’s system of internal control over LEAs’ use of Emergency Impact Aid program funds did not ensure that LEAs accounted for Emergency Impact Aid program funds received for students reported as children with disabilities in accordance with Federal requirements.

For our evaluation of the International Trade Administration’s (ITA’s) U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service’s (US&FCS’s) officer promotion process, our objective was to determine whether US&FCS adhered to applicable laws, regulations, and policies when conducting the 2018 officer promotion process. We found that ITA’s 2018 US&FCS officer promotion process did not adhere to certain applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Specifically, we found the following: I. ITA did not determine the number of available promotion opportunities before selection boards convened; II. board rankings and other sensitive information were improperly stored on an unsecured shared network drive; III. US&FCS incorrectly determined promotion eligibility; and IV. discrepancies were identified in the rankings of one selection board. We also noted a separate matter for ITA management's attention with respect to conflicts of interest within an “Other Matter” section of this report.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an inspection to assess allegations related to delayed medication delivery from the VA Manila Outpatient Clinic (clinic) pharmacy in Pasay City, Philippines, prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.The OIG substantiated a patient experienced medication delivery delays and did not timely receive morphine from the clinic pharmacy in October and November 2019. While the patient requested a renewal in a timely manner, pharmacists could not fill the medication because there was no available stock from the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) prime vendor, McKesson Corporation (McKesson). The OIG did not substantiate a second patient experienced medication delivery delays for five new orders, a medication renewal, and a glucometer in November 2019. The OIG was unable to substantiate if this patient experienced delivery delays of three medication refills because the OIG could not determine when the patient requested the refills.Clinic leaders identified a pharmacy processing time of 10.09 days (eight days over VHA and clinic policy requirements) in October 2019. In November 2019, the Chief of Pharmacy Services initiated an action plan. The average pharmacy processing time decreased to 1.63 days in December 2019. The Philippine President declared a COVID-19 public health emergency on March 8, 2020, and implemented a quarantine on March 16, 2020, that imposed travel limitations. Four patients experienced medication delivery delays in March and April 2020 due to limited or nonexistent courier transport. The OIG substantiated pharmacists could not dispense insulin to a patient as the clinic pharmacy had no stock after April 2020. McKesson canceled orders for perishable items due to unavailability of flights to the Philippines. The OIG determined that none of these delays resulted in adverse clinical outcomes and made two recommendations related to pharmacy stock shortages and processing delays.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an administrative investigation in response to a referral from VA officials about the potential for a conflict of interest involving VA employees’ establishment of a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) between VA and a private company in 2016. The CRADA contemplated VA sharing with the private company the health data of all veterans who had ever received health care from VA. The CRADA was canceled prior to the release of any health data. The OIG did not substantiate the existence of any conflict of interest; however, investigators found that two VA employees involved in creating the CRADA made false representations to and concealed material information from VA’s approving official for the agreement. Before the CRADA was executed, VA privacy experts informed the two VA employees that the terms of the proposed CRADA raised regulatory concerns that needed to be addressed before approval. Despite the privacy experts’ objections, the two VA employees intentionally failed to disclose the unresolved privacy issues to the approving official. They also falsely represented that all reviews, including privacy, information security, and legal, had been completed—implying that any identified issues had been addressed and resolved. The OIG concluded that the approving official relied on the information received from the two VA employees and was led to approve the CRADA under false pretenses. As a result of the two VA employees’ actions, the health data of tens of millions of veterans would have been placed at risk of disclosure if VA officials had not detected a problem and cancelled the CRADA before information was shared with the private company. The matter was declined for prosecution. The OIG made two recommendations related to determining what administrative action, if any, VA should take with respect to the two employees’ conduct.