Federal Reports

Ricarda Burrell, a former Customer Service Representative, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to one count of mail fraud and one count of theft of public money involving CARES Act Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) fraud. Burrell received the PUA while she was employed at Amtrak. The total fraud amount was $9,739. Sentencing has been scheduled for September 3, 2024.

In September 2023, VA announced it had erroneously awarded millions of dollars in critical skill incentive (CSI) payments to senior executives at its central office. VA cancelled the payments, notified Congress, and requested the Office of Inspector General (OIG) review the matter.CSIs are a new recruitment and retention tool authorized by the PACT Act, which significantly expanded access to VA health care and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances. CSIs are meant for an employee who “possesses a high-demand skill or skill that is at a shortage,” to help VA meet a projected increase in staffing requirements. In total, VA awarded $10.8 million in CSIs to 182 senior executives (ranging from nearly $39,000 to over $100,000 each) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) at VA’s central office.The OIG found the award of CSIs to nearly all VHA and VBA central office executives lacked adequate justification and was inconsistent with the PACT Act and VA policy. This was due, in part, to breakdowns in leadership and controls at multiple levels of VA, including• insufficient transparency from VHA regarding the scope and costs of its CSI plans for VACO senior executives; • excessive deference by VA’s Human Resources and Administration/Operations, Security, and Preparedness leaders to under secretaries and other senior leaders, despite concerns that they or their staff had about the incentives;• missed opportunities by the Office of General Counsel to detect legal issues with the CSIs before payment; and• failure to leverage VA’s existing governance processes to ensure proper risk management of the new CSI authority.VA concurred with the OIG’s two findings and eight recommendations and provided acceptable action plans and completion timelines. The OIG will monitor VA’s progress until sufficient documentation has been received to close the recommendations as implemented.

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) requires that federal agencies that have or use nondisclosure policies, forms, or agreements ensure that said policies, forms, or agreements include an explicit statement (“anti-gag provision”) notifying the signatory employees that they retain their rights to report wrongdoing to Congress, the Inspector General (IG), or the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Two of the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) recent nondisclosure agreements did not fully comply with this requirement. The CPSC must act to remedy this non-compliance going forward.

When a veteran files a claim for disability benefits, a medical exam may be necessary. If the nearest VA medical center cannot conduct the exam, a contract exam vendor is utilized. Medical Disability Exam contracts require contract exam facilities to comply with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards.In response to accessibility, safety, and cleanliness concerns documented in customer satisfaction surveys, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) directly inspected facilities and reviewed Medical Disability Examination Office (MDEO) oversight of vendors. The OIG identified one or more ADA and OSHA deficiencies at 114 of the 135 exam facilities visited. MDEO relied on vendors to self-certify compliance with ADA and OSHA standards; however, MDEO did not provide necessary oversight.The OIG noted four specific oversight deficits. First, MDEO lacked independent access to facilities, depending on vendors for locations to assess compliance issues. Second, MDEO relied on vendors to distribute their own exam satisfaction survey cards. Third, at the time of the review, MDEO lacked formal standardized procedures and training for inspections. Fourth, MDEO required exam vendors to inspect and self-certify facilities, yet vendors stated they relied on self-reporting or photos from subcontractors. Further, MDEO did not verify ADA and OSHA compliance despite receiving complaints from veterans.While the OIG acknowledges the improvement plans MDEO leaders shared during the review, the OIG made nine recommendations to the under secretary for benefits, including that MDEO more closely monitor inspections, visit sites, use a revised inspection checklist, maintain a facilities inventory, and have independent access. MDEO and vendors should also ensure accessibility prior to scheduling. Finally, inspection processes and training should be standardized and vendor contracts enforced. Until oversight improves, veterans are at risk of harm and benefits compensation may be delayed.