Federal Reports

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

We performed the 23rd review of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation’s (LMDC) administration of the $2.783 billion in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery funds awarded to the State of New York in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City. This review was performed in response to a congressional mandate that we continuously audit the administration of these funds. The objective of the audit was to determine whether LMDC administered its Disaster Recovery-funded WTC Performing Arts Center activity under its WTC Site program in accordance with applicable requirements. We reviewed more than $47.2 million, or 100 percent, of the funds disbursed for the activity during our audit period.LMDC generally administered its Disaster Recovery-funded WTC Performing Arts Center activity under its WTC Site program in accordance with applicable requirements. For the more than $47.2 million in disbursements reviewed, LMDC ensured that disbursements were for eligible and supported costs. In addition, LMDC provided effective subrecipient and contractor oversight for the activity reviewed.There are no recommendations.

We audited the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis, MD’s Housing Choice Voucher Program because we received a complaint alleging that the Authority (1) ignored discrepancies between income information for applicants and program participants and (2) did not properly administer its program. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority administered its program in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. We focused the audit on whether the Authority (1) accurately calculated and maintained support for housing assistance payments, (2) properly administered its waiting list and selected applicants from it, and (3) admitted only eligible applicants.The allegation regarding the Authority’s ignoring discrepancies between income information for applicants and program participants had no merit. However, the allegation that the Authority did not always properly administer its program had merit. Specifically, the Authority did not (1) properly administer its waiting list and select tenants from it and (2) maintain adequate documentation to show that it admitted eligible applicants into its program. These conditions occurred because the Authority (1) was unaware of some waiting list requirements, (2) lacked controls to ensure that it maintained documentation to show that it properly selected applicants from the waiting list, (3) lacked procedures to ensure that it maintained documentation to show that it admitted eligible families into the program, and (4) did not establish a reasonable timeframe before admitting applicants who had engaged in criminal activity. As a result, HUD lacked assurance that applicants admitted into the program (1) were properly placed on the waiting list, (2) were selected fairly from the waiting list, and (3) met all eligibility requirements.We recommend that HUD require the Authority to (1) update its administrative plan to clearly define the weights or rankings of its waiting list preference system; (2) develop and implement controls to ensure that it administers its waiting list according to the requirements in its administrative plan, including maintaining documentation to show that it properly selected applicants from the waiting list; (3) develop and implement procedures to ensure that it maintains documentation to show that it admitted eligible families into the program; and (4) update its administrative plan to establish the timeframe during which an applicant must not have engaged in criminal activity before it will admit the applicant into the program.

When Congress established average sales price (ASP) as the basis for Medicare Part B drug reimbursement, it also provided a mechanism for monitoring market prices and limiting potentially excessive payment amounts. The Social Security Act mandates that OIG compare ASPs with average manufacturer prices (AMPs). If OIG finds that the ASP for a drug exceeds the AMP by a certain percentage (currently 5 percent), the Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to substitute the ASP based payment amount with a lower calculated rate. Through regulation, CMS outlined that it would make this substitution only if the ASP for a drug exceeds the AMP by 5 percent in the 2 previous quarters or 3 of the previous 4 quarters.