Federal Reports

Account Identifier Code (AIC) 553, Refund Postage and Fees, is used to record refunds of customers postage and fees paid for special services not received. OIG data analytics identified the Bellmawr Main Window as having the highest amount recorded to AIC 553 during fiscal year (FY) 2018 quarter (Q) 4, and FY 2019, Q1. The objective of this audit was to determine whether postage and fee refunds were valid, properly supported, and processed at the Bellmawr Main Window.

The DOL-OIG Highlights is a bimonthly publication summarizing selected OIG significant concerns and accomplishments.

In response to a congressional request, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit to determine whether processors of non-VA emergency care claims inappropriately denied or rejected the claims, and, if so, whether the cause was pressure to meet production standards. The OIG conducted an accuracy review of claims for emergency medical care obtained outside VA and found that 31 percent of denied or rejected non-VA emergency care claims—with an estimated billed amount of $716 million—were inappropriately processed from April 1 through September 30, 2017, creating the risk of undue financial burden to an estimated 60,800 veterans. The review revealed that some of those denied and rejected claims should have been approved. The OIG estimated from its sample that about 17,400 veterans—with related bills totaling approximately $53.3 million—were negatively affected. The remaining processing errors still created a risk that the claimants did not receive complete and accurate information regarding why their claim was not approved, and therefore could not effectively respond with necessary information to obtain claim approval and payment. The OIG concluded there was a significant risk that some of the errors identified in this audit resulted from pressure to meet production targets, insufficient quality assurance of claims processing accuracy, and incentives associated with meeting production targets. The OIG made 11 recommendations to improve the accuracy of non-VA emergency claims processing that included addressing the culture of prioritizing claims productivity over accuracy, improving performance evaluation standards and review processes, tying incentives to all performance standards rather than just production quantity, reevaluating inappropriately processed claims, and improving internal and external communication about claim status.

To determine whether the Social Security Administration (SSA) had taken appropriate actions for Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance beneficiaries over age 70 whose benefits were suspended for address, whereabouts unknown, or failure to return the foreign enforcement questionnaire.

This report presents the results of our self-initiated audit of Mail Delivery Issues – Broadview Station, Atlanta, GA. The Broadview Station is in the Atlanta District of the Capital Metro Area. This audit was designed to provide U.S. Postal Service management with timely information on potential mail delivery risks at the Broadview Station. The objective of this audit was to assess mail delivery service on selected routes at the Broadview Station in Atlanta, GA.

The OIG investigated an allegation that a former Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) realty specialist solicited a $200 bribe from a longtime lessee of tribal land so the lessee could retain the lease.We could not prove or disprove the bribery allegation. The lessee provided us a transaction receipt for a $200 check he wrote to a local store for cash, which he said he then paid to the BIA employee in exchange for assistance with renewing the lease. The lessee, however, could not provide any further evidence to corroborate his claim. The former BIA employee denied soliciting or accepting money from the lessee.During our investigation, we learned the lessee submitted a $57,000 lease renewal payment to the BIA but was not awarded the lease because he did not submit his bid in time. The former BIA employee erroneously sent the lessee an invoice and then accepted the payment and issued it to the Tribe. At the time of our report, neither the Tribe nor the BIA had reimbursed the lessee for the erroneous payment.The employee left the Department during our investigation. We referred this matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which declined prosecution.

We audited the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ (State) Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program because the State was the largest recipient of CDBG funds in New England. HUD awarded the State more than $88 million in CDBG funding for program years 2015, 2016, and 2017. In addition, we had not audited any of the State’s community planning and development programs in the last 10 years. Our audit objective was to determine whether the State provided adequate oversight and monitoring to ensure that its grantees complied with applicable State and Federal laws and requirements regarding (1) procurement, (2) conflict of interest, (3) program delivery, and (4) indirect cost rates.The State did not always ensure that its grantees complied with applicable State and Federal laws and requirements. Specifically, grantees did not always (1) properly conduct and document environmental reviews, (2) obtain independent cost estimates, (3) properly charge program delivery costs, and (4) obtain the State’s approval for projects that exceeded program limits.These deficiencies occurred because the State did not provide adequate oversight to ensure that its grantees complied with applicable State and Federal laws and requirements. As a result, we identified more than $1.5 million in questioned costs charged to the program, and HUD did not have assurance that all costs were eligible and supported.We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Massachusetts Office of Community Planning and Development require State officials to (1) repay $665,920 in ineligible program costs; (2) support or repay $896,387 in unsupported program costs; and (3) provide additional guidance to their grantees and strengthen controls over procurement, site-specific environmental reviews, and the definition of which expenses are considered program delivery costs.