Federal Reports

We evaluated the merits of two confidential Hotline allegations received after we published the Review of Alleged Misuse of VA Funds To Develop the Health Care Claims Processing System in March 2015. The complainants alleged that the Chief Business Office (CBO) continued to spend about $11 million of medical support and compliance (MS&C) appropriations on Health Care Claims Processing System (HCPS) development from August through September 2014, despite being told by OIG during an April 2014 meeting of OIG, CBO, and Financial Services Center that they should have used the Information Technology (IT) Systems appropriation. We confirmed that CBO spent MS&C funds to support HCPS during the OIG’s previous review, conducted from March through December 2014. This was prior to OIG’s official notification to VA in December 2014 that a potential Antideficiency Act violation had occurred. We confirmed that OIG personnel informed the former Deputy Chief Business Officer of the potential violation of appropriations law at an April 2014 meeting. However, CBO staff did not alter their spending patterns after learning of the potential violation. In addition, OIG did not formally notify the former Interim Under Secretary for Health of the potential violation until the draft report was issued in December 2014. The VA Secretary reported the violation of the Antideficiency Act as required by section 1351 of Title 31, United States Code. Therefore, we made no recommendations in the report.

Seek link below for the full report, report summary, multimedia or any agency follow-up.

In February 2017, we evaluated the Wilmington VA Regional Office (VARO) to see how well staff processed disability claims, proposed rating reductions, and input claims information in the electronic system of record. Wilmington Veterans Service Center (VSC) staff did not consistently process one of the two types of disability claims we reviewed. We reviewed all 16 veterans’ claims available involving entitlement to Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) and related ancillary benefits completed by VSC staff in calendar year 2016. We found VSC staff inaccurately processed eight claims. Of the eight claims with errors, three affected veterans’ benefits—resulting in improper payments totaling approximately $25,500. Generally, the errors occurred because second signature reviews were ineffective, and staff were unaware of policy involving eligibility for certain ancillary benefits. VSC staff generally processed rating reductions accurately but needed to complete this workload to ensure timely action. We reviewed all seven cases within scope and found VSC staff delayed or incorrectly processed four of the reductions. Delays occurred because the VSC managers prioritized other workloads higher in order to meet established performance goals related to processing disability claims. These delays and processing inaccuracies resulted in approximately $25,300 in overpayments. VSC staff needs to improve the accuracy of information input into the electronic systems at the time of claims establishment. We randomly sampled 30 of 196 newly established claims and found VSC staff did not correctly input information into the electronic system for 16 claims due to the lack of a quality review process for staff establishing claims. We recommended the VARO Director assess the effectiveness of secondary reviews associated with SMC claims, provide training for SMC, and monitor the effectiveness of this training. We also recommended the VARO Director implement a quality review process for claims establishment. The VARO Director concurred with our recommendations.

Internal Controls Over Post Office Postage Meter Use―Canton Center, CT, Post Office

This Newsletter provides a bimonthly summary of selected investigative accomplishments.

EAC OIG, through the independent public accounting firm of McBride, Lock & Associates, LLC, audited $30.4 million in funds received by the Maryland State Board of Elections under the Help America Vote Act. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Board: 1) used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102 and 251 of the Grant in accordance with Grant and applicable requirements; 2) accurately and properly accounted for property purchased with Grant payments and for program income; 3) met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for creation of an election fund, providing required matching contributions, and meeting the requirements for maintenance of a base level of state outlays, commonly referred to as Maintenance of Expenditures (MOE).