Federal Reports

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a healthcare inspection in response to an inquiry from Congressman Pete Aguilar and a complaint regarding patient care involving a nurse practitioner (NP) and physician assistant (PA) in the hematology/oncology section at the VA Loma Linda Healthcare System (system) in California. The OIG initiated the inspection in May 2025, conducted a site visit in June, and continued off-site inspection activities through November 2025.

The OIG determined that two of the NP’s patients, and two of the PA’s patients had hematology/oncology clinical care concerns. The Chief of Staff assessed the four patient cases through appropriate reviews; however, the Chief of Staff delayed the initiation of two peer reviews by approximately five months. Credentialing documentation confirmed that the NP and PA were credentialed and met Veterans Health Administration (VHA) requirements to provide hematology/oncology care at the facility. Service leaders supervised the NP and PA by completing focused and ongoing professional practice evaluations and appraisals, but delays occurred in completing the NP’s initial focused professional practice evaluation and a focused professional practice evaluation for additional privileges. Interviews revealed leaders’ lack of awareness of requirements and lack of a tracking system may have contributed to these delays. Ongoing professional practice evaluations were also historically late, though service leaders took corrective actions before the site visit. The OIG found the Chief of Staff had not designated collaborating physicians for the PA, which was corrected after OIG identified the issue.

The System Director concurred with the OIG’s two recommendations and shared plans and actions taken to address timely signing of designation memos for peer reviews and completion of focused professional practice evaluations. The OIG will continue to monitor VHA’s management changes to ensure effective programs for veterans.

As part of our mission to safeguard the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) programs from fraud, waste, and abuse, and to identify opportunities for HUD programs to progress and succeed, we selected Colorado for a review of potential improper payments.  Our audit objective was to determine whether Colorado made improper non-Federal match activity payments.  We also assessed whether the Office of Community Planning and Development’s Office of Disaster Recovery (CPD ODR) had sufficient and adequate controls to prevent improper match payments.

We did not identify duplicate or significant amounts of unsupported non-Federal match payments for Colorado.  However, Colorado received $1.3 million of disaster recovery reimbursements from HUD that it reported as matching costs for FEMA’s Public Assistance program, but the costs were other disaster recovery costs.  This occurred because Colorado did not establish financial or payment controls for non-Federal match costs within HUD’s Disaster Recovery Grants Reporting (DRGR) system.  CPD does not require disaster recovery grantees to separately report non-Federal match costs in its data systems.  As a result, Colorado over-reported the amount of HUD disaster recovery funds it spent on non-Federal match activities.  Colorado’s reporting could increase the risk of improper payments as HUD and its stakeholders cannot use HUD’s data systems and reports to ensure that Colorado properly uses its disaster recovery funds for non-Federal match activities.

We recommend that Colorado incorporate financial and other internal controls to ensure that it allocates, tracks, and reports non-Federal match costs separately from non-match costs.  If Colorado does so, it will enhance the accuracy and transparency of its reporting of $1.3 million of disaster recovery funds.  We also recommend that CPD ODR require disaster recovery grantees to report non-Federal match activities or expenses in its data systems in a manner which will show that grantees are properly using their disaster recovery funds for the non-Federal match portion of FEMA’s Public Assistance program.
 

Semiannual Report to Congress (26-1)

During the week of December 8, 2025, we performed a self-initiated audit at the Westchester Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) and four delivery units serviced by the plant. The delivery units included the Mount Vernon, New Rouchelle, White Plains, and Yonkers Main Post Offices in the New York, NY, area.

We issued individual reports for the four delivery units and the P&DC. We also issued another report summarizing the results of our audits at all four delivery units with specific recommendations for management to address.

Why We Did This Report

We conducted this audit to determine whether the EPA is managing its Superfund special accounts properly and timely in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and guidance.
 

Summary of Findings

Based on our in-depth review of nine Superfund special accounts, we found that the EPA generally managed special accounts in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and guidance, with the exceptions that the EPA needs to take steps to expeditiously use the funds in the Anniston Lead Superfund Site special account and needs to correct special accounts with negative balances in a timely manner.