Federal Reports

The Medicaid program pays for nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) services that a State determines to be necessary for beneficiaries to obtain care. Prior OIG audit reports have consistently identified NEMT services as vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse.Our objective was to determine whether Indiana claimed Federal Medicaid reimbursement for NEMT service claims in accordance with Federal and State requirements.

For a covered outpatient drug to be eligible for Federal reimbursement under the Medicaid program’s drug rebate requirements, manufacturers must pay rebates to the States. States bill the manufacturers for rebates to reduce the cost of drugs to the program. However, previous Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits found that States did not always bill and collect all rebates due for drugs administered by physicians to enrollees of Medicaid managed-care organizations (MCOs). For this audit, we reviewed the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services’ (State agency’s) billing of rebates for both pharmacy and physician-administered drugs dispensed to MCO enrollees. Our objective was to determine whether the State agency complied with Federal Medicaid requirements for billing manufacturers for rebates for drugs dispensed to MCO enrollees.

When an overpayment is identified in Medicare Part A or Part B, providers have the right to contest the overpayment amount using the Medicare administrative appeals process. If a statistical estimate of an overpayment (an extrapolated overpayment) is overturned during the administrative appeals process, then the provider is liable for the overpayment identified in the sample but not the extrapolated amount. Given the large difference between overpayment amounts in the sample and extrapolated amounts, it is critical that the process for reviewing extrapolations during an appeal is fair and reasonably consistent. In the first and second levels of the appeals process, such extrapolated overpayments are reviewed by Medicare administrative contractors (MACs) and qualified independent contractors (QICs), respectively.Our objective was to determine whether the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ensured that MACs and QICs reviewed appealed extrapolated overpayments consistently and in a manner that conforms with existing CMS requirements.

In accordance with our Annual Performance Plan Fiscal Year 2020, dated October 2019, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review of the United States Capitol Police (USCP or the Department) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The scope of the review included existing policies and procedures related to OPR for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 through March 31, 2020.  OIG objectives were to determine if the Department (1) established adequate internal controls and processes for ensuring compliance with Department policies and (2) complied with policies and procedures, laws, regulations, and best practices.

Our objective was to determine if the Postal Service developed the HERO system in accordance with policies, procedures, and industry best practices, and whether it is functioning as management intended.

National Provider Identifiers (NPIs) for physicians and nonphysician practitioners who order and/or refer services (ordering providers) are essential for safeguarding the program integrity of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS); clinical laboratory services; imaging services; and home health services in Medicare. NPIs are critical for identifying inappropriate billing and ordering patterns among providers and investigating fraud and abuse. Both CMS and OIG rely on NPIs for ordering providers to conduct oversight and pursue fraud investigations.

What We Looked AtWe performed a quality control review (QCR) on the single audit that PBMares, LLP performed for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' (MWCOG) fiscal year that ended June 30, 2018. During this period, MWCOG expended approximately $17.9 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) grant programs. PBMares determined that DOT's major programs were the Highway Planning and Construction Cluster, and the Metropolitan Transportation Planning and State and Non-Metropolitan Planning and Research 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 MWCOG's reporting package complied with the reporting requirements of the Uniform Guidance.What We FoundPBMares' 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 PBMares' opinion on each of DOT's major programs was inappropriate or unreliable. However, we identified a deficiency in MWCOG's reporting package that required correction and resubmission.

We determined CBP’s use of tear gas on these dates, in response to physical threats, appeared to be within CBP’s use of force policy. However, U.S. Border Patrol obtained an acoustic device and used it in an “alert tone” mode on November 25, 2018, which did not conform to CBP’s Use of Force policy because Border Patrol did not get advance authorization to have a device with this capability. CBP’s Use of Force policy would have permitted use of the alert tone in a manner reasonable and necessary for self-defense or the defense of another person in threatening, emergent situations. However, the policy does not authorize the carrying of any weapon for duty use that is not authorized, included on the Authorized Equipment List, or specifically approved by the LESC director. Using the acoustic device in alert mode may increase the risk of temporary or permanent hearing loss to those exposed to the sound and thereby increase the Government’s liability. CBP’s own internal investigation of the November 25, 2018 incident regarding the acoustic device was incomplete and inaccurate and did not provide all the information CBP needed to determine whether the CBP officer and Border Patrol agents involved had complied with the use of force policy. In addition, not all Border Patrol agents had the required training and certification to carry less-lethal devices. This occurred because Border Patrol lacked internal controls to ensure agents had fulfilled these requirements. Border Patrol agents using less-lethal devices for which they are not certified could result in unintended serious injury or death, increasing the Government’s liability. We made four recommendations to CBP to ensure compliance with its Use of Force policy and improve its investigative process. CBP concurred with all four recommendations.