Federal Reports

Pursuant to the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act of 2017, the OIG conducted a review to identify clinical and non-clinical occupations experiencing staffing shortages within Veterans Health Administration (VHA). This is the eighth iteration of the staffing report and the fourth evaluating facility-level data. The OIG evaluated severe occupational staffing shortages identified through surveying VHA facilities and compared this information to the previous three years.The OIG found that 98 percent of VHA facilities identified at least one severe occupational staffing shortage. The total number of identified severe occupational staffing shortages was 2,152. Every year since 2014, Medical Officer and Nurse occupations were identified as severe shortages. Within the Medical Officer occupational series, Psychiatry was the most frequently reported clinical severe occupational staffing shortage in fiscal year (FY) 2021, with 50 percent of facilities identifying this occupation. Medical Support Assistance was the most frequently reported non-clinical occupation in FY 2021, with 45 percent of facilities identifying occupational staffing shortages with this occupation. Medical Support Assistance was also the most frequently reported Hybrid Title 38 occupation.The OIG observed annual decreases in the overall number of severe shortages since FY 2018. The number of occupations reported by at least 20 percent of facilities decreased from 30 in FY 2018 to 19 in FY 2021. Facilities reporting no severe occupational shortages increased from zero to three over the last four FYs.The OIG made no recommendations.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an inspection at the VA Illiana Health Care System in Danville, Illinois, to determine the validity of allegations, specific to COVID-19 and the Community Living Center (CLC), of failure to observe infection control practices, failure to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19, inconsistent ongoing testing, and failure to notify residents, families, and staff of positive test results. During the inspection, the OIG identified concerns related to leaders’ post-outbreak actions.The OIG substantiated a failure to observe general infection control practices. Residents and staff did not consistently wear face coverings prior to and at times, after the outbreak. Prior to the outbreak, one CLC nursing staff member was fit tested for an N95 mask and no CLC nursing staff had been trained about powered air purifying respirators.Leaders failed to minimize the risk of exposure to COVID-19. Leaders did not respond adequately to a staff exposure, have a plan for the transfer and isolation of residents, implement recommended infection control measures when performing aerosol generating procedures, and continued to hold group therapies.The OIG did not substantiate the facility failed to notify residents, their families, and staff of COVID-19 test results, but did substantiate the lack of a post-baseline testing plan and a failure to test CLC staff after potential exposure.The OIG identified actions taken by leaders following the CLC outbreak lacked input from frontline staff to identify corrective actions and opportunities for improvement.The OIG made 14 recommendations related to review of the failure to manage an outbreak; mask wearing; respiratory personal protective equipment; adherence to guidance on COVID-19 exposure; operability of the bed management system; policy management; development of comprehensive testing plans; communicating family notification policy; operational risk management; and frontline staff inclusion in facility review.

The OIG reviews proposals submitted to VA for Federal Supply Schedule pharmaceutical contracts valued annually at $5 million or greater. These preaward reviews help VA contract specialists negotiate fair and reasonable prices for the government and taxpayers.Individual preaward reviews are not published because they contain sensitive commercial information that is protected from release under the Trade Secrets Act. To promote transparency, the OIG issued a report summarizing the reviews of pharmaceutical contract proposals conducted in fiscal year 2020. This report details how many proposals were accurate, complete, and current, and summarized pricing and prior recommendations for those that were not. It does not include additional recommendations for VA response.In its preaward reviews, the OIG• Provided an opinion as to whether the proposal and commercial disclosures were accurate, complete, and current. Seven of the 15 proposals reviewed were reliable for determining negotiation objectives and, ultimately, fair and reasonable pricing. The remaining eight proposals could not be reliably used for negotiations until the noted deficiencies were corrected.• Made recommendations for pricing based on the vendor’s commercial selling practices. The OIG made recommendations for lower prices than offered for four proposals, resulting in total recommended cost savings of approximately $56.5 million.• Evaluated and suggested alternative tracking customers. “Tracking customers” are selected from among the vendor’s commercial customers; the price reductions they receive are used to determine the price reductions offered to the government. In the 15 proposals reviewed, the OIG determined that for 177 of the 515 offered items, vendors proposed tracking customers that were not adequate for the purposes of the price reductions clause in the contracts. For these 177 items, the OIG recommended different tracking customers.Contract specialists have completed negotiations on the proposals, and the OIG’s recommendations collectively resulted in approximately $42 million in savings for VA.

To see our report, click on the link below

The objective of our audit was to determine if Remington College used the Student Aid (Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.425E) and Institutional (ALN 84.425F) portions of its Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) grant funds for allowable and intended purposes.Remington College generally used the Student Aid portion of its HEERF grant funds for allowable and intended purposes but did not always use the Institutional portion of its funds in accordance with Federal requirements. We found that Remington College spent Institutional funds for several unallowable purposes and did not always follow Federal procurement and cash management requirements.