Federal Reports

Previous OIG reviews of Medicaid administrative costs found that several States did not always claim administrative costs according to Federal requirements. As part of a Medicaid risk assessment, we noted that Virginia claimed $342.6 million ($220 million Federal share) for Medicaid administrative costs associated with Virginia’s Medicaid Managed Care Medallion 3.0 waiver program for State fiscal years (SFYs) 2016 and 2017. We conducted this audit because of the significant amount that Virginia claimed and because of our previous findings related to Medicaid administrative costs.

This report presents the results of our audit of Bank Deposit Procedures – Bronx, NY, Botanical Station. The Botanical Station is in the New York District of the Northeast Area. This audit was designed to provide U.S. Postal Service management with timely information on potential financial control risks at Postal Service locations.

OIG administers the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU or Unit) grant awards, annually recertifies the Units, and oversees the Units' performance in accordance with the requirements of the grant. As part of this oversight, OIG conducts periodic reviews of all Units and prepares public reports based on these reviews.

An Amtrak Food Specialist in Los Angeles, California, was terminated from employment following an administrative hearing June 22, 2018, for violating company policy by fraudulently designating four individuals who were not his legal dependents as beneficiaries on his company health insurance. During the time these individuals were improperly covered under the company’s health insurance plan, the company paid approximately $744,000 in health care claims on their behalf.

New York did not ensure that selected New York City providers (operating in Brooklyn, NY) that received funding from the Child Care and Development Fund complied with applicable State and local requirements related to the health and safety of children. We found potentially hazardous physical conditions at all 11 locations operated by the 3 providers that we reviewed. Moreover, we found that the providers did not comply with requirements to obtain background checks on employees. The instances of noncompliance occurred because New York had no written procedures regarding monitoring of legally exempt providers’ compliance with physical condition and background check requirements. In addition, New York’s requirement that providers access a child abuse and maltreatment system to perform one required background check was inconsistent with current State law.