Federal Reports

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed whether the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) complied with legal requirements to reinstate disability benefits questionnaire forms from non-VA medical providers. The forms are used to submit medical information needed for processing veterans’ disability claims. The OIG also examined whether VBA claims processors followed VA procedures for using the published questionnaires.Previous OIG reports found significant internal control problems with publicly available questionnaires. In February 2020, the OIG issued a report responsive to allegations that some veterans’ benefits claims using publicly available questionnaires were potentially fraudulent. The report noted that while VBA had taken some steps to mitigate this risk, there were further internal control and procedural deficiencies.This report finds that VBA complied with the requirements of the law by reinstating 69 questionnaires on its public-facing website. However, disability benefits questionnaires that were incomplete, inaccurate, or of questionable authenticity from non-VA medical providers were not always processed correctly when determining benefits entitlement—causing underpayments of about $13,900 and overpayments of $74,800 over the nine months studied.Improper processing occurred because VBA lacked sufficient controls to ensure disability benefits questionnaires from non-VA medical providers were properly relied on when determining entitlement to benefits.VBA concurred with the OIG’s five recommendations, including that VBA correct all identified processing errors and report back the results. Additionally, the VBA’s adjudication procedures manual should be revised and updated to clarify and communicate steps claims processors must take to verify all certification elements on the publicly available questionnaires; clarify the intent of guidance involving authenticity, face value, and validation of the questionnaires; and define valid rationale to ensure medical opinions are well supported. Finally, the OIG recommended VBA ensures claims processors understand the need to document the evaluation of evidence when using publicly available benefits questionnaires.

Due to an elevated number of human performance events in Gas Operations and Hydro Generation organizations in fiscal year 2020, we initiated an evaluation to determine if TVA was taking appropriate actions in response to human performance events.We determined appropriate actions were taken in response to human performance events in Gas and Hydro. Specifically, we determined (1) actions were taken or planned to be taken in response to human performance events and (2) initiatives were created to improve human performance in the organizations.

We evaluated FSA’s administration of MFP. Specifically, we evaluated FSA’s oversight of producer eligibility and certifications, as well as the accuracy of MFP payments.

We audited the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) grant closeout processes and compliance with the Grants Oversight and New Efficiency (GONE) Act. The GONE Act required that we conduct a risk assessment to determine whether an audit of HUD’s grant closeout process was warranted. We initiated this review based on the results of our risk assessment conducted in fiscal year 2018, which found that an audit was warranted. Our objectives were to determine whether HUD (1) implemented adequate grant closeout processes to ensure compliance with GONE Act requirements and (2) ensured that reports related to its compliance with the GONE Act were accurate.HUD did not implement adequate GONE Act grant closeout processes, and related data and reports were not always accurate. Specifically, it implemented bulk closeout procedures that bypassed requirements, and its data used to compile reports included inconsistencies and incorrect information. These conditions occurred because HUD (1) focused on closing its backlog of expired grants as quickly as possible; (2) did not have adequate controls over its GONE Act grant closeout, data, and reporting processes; and (3) had not developed and implemented clear and consistent guidance on GONE Act requirements for its program offices. As a result, HUD made errors in grant closeouts and was unable to ensure that related data and reports to Congress and other stakeholders were accurate. Although HUD’s reporting responsibilities under the GONE Act have ended, it should address the weaknesses identified to ensure future compliance with grant closeout requirements and consistent and accurate reporting of grant information to stakeholders.We recommend that HUD develop and implement controls (1) for use of the bulk grant closeout process going forward to ensure that grants are closed in accordance with all applicable requirements and (2) to ensure that future grant data reporting to stakeholders is consistent and accurate.