Federal Reports

Ryan Kane, a resident of Pennsylvania, was sentenced in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, to time served, three years supervised release, and a $100 special assessment for his part in an Amtrak ticket fraud scheme. As part of his sentence, Kane was ordered to pay $124,544 in restitution; $35,000 of which is owed solely by Kane and $89,544 of which is owed jointly with co-conspirator Christian Newby. As a condition of his release, Kane was sentenced to 12 months of home detention with electronic monitoring. Kane previously pleaded guilty to theft of government funds after our investigation found that he participated in a scheme to defraud Amtrak and others by using stolen credit card information from more than 10 credit cards to purchase Amtrak tickets online.

The OIG investigated allegations that a Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) superintendent and one of the superintendent’s coworkers influenced the award of a subcontract on a BIE contract to a business owned by a family member of the superintendent. We also investigated allegations that the superintendent instructed other BIE employees to perform work for the family member’s business while on duty.We found no evidence the superintendent directly influenced the award of the contract because we found no evidence that the prime contractor had substantive contact with the superintendent before selecting subcontractors. We did find, however, that the superintendent’s coworker included the family member’s company on a list of recommended subcontractors sent to the prime contractor, which violated standing guidance. This failure may have contributed to an appearance of improper influence.We confirmed that BIE employees assisted subcontractors with tasks at the project site but did not find evidence that, in allowing this, the superintendent’s position was misused to benefit the family member’s business.

This Office of Inspector General (OIG) Comprehensive Healthcare Inspection Program report provides a focused evaluation of the quality of care delivered in the inpatient and outpatient settings of the Ann Arbor VA Medical Center and multiple outpatient clinics in Michigan and Ohio. The inspection covers key clinical and administrative processes that are associated with promoting quality care. This inspection focused on Leadership and Organizational Risks; COVID-19 Pandemic Readiness and Response; Quality, Safety, and Value; Medical Staff Privileging; Medication Management: Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Pain; Mental Health: Suicide Prevention Program; Care Coordination: Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions; Women’s Health: Comprehensive Care; and High-Risk Processes: Reusable Medical Equipment.The medical center executive leadership team appeared stable. All positions were permanently assigned and only the assistant director had been in the role for less than a year. Employee survey items revealed that leaders appeared to have created a positive workplace environment where employees felt safe bringing forth issues and concerns. Patient experience survey data indicated satisfaction with inpatient care provided and highlighted opportunities to improve veterans’ experiences in the outpatient settings. The OIG’s review of the medical center’s accreditation findings, sentinel events, and disclosures did not identify any substantial organizational risk factors. Leaders were generally knowledgeable about selected data used in Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning models and should continue to take actions to sustain and improve performance.The OIG issued nine recommendations for improvement in five areas:(1) Quality, Safety, and Value• Improvement action implementation(2) Medical Staff Privileging• Ongoing professional practice evaluations• Provider exit reviews(3) Mental Health• Suicide safety plans• Staff training(4) Women’s Health• Women Veterans Health Committee structure and reporting(5) High-Risk Processes• Daily cleaning schedule• Storage and reprocessing areas temperature and humidity• Staff continuing education

The audit objectives were to determine whether program funds were managed in accordance with the ARC and Federal grant requirements