Federal Reports

OIG reviewed FSIS at the national office level to evaluate its implementation of NPIS at covered poultry slaughter facilities.

We Looked AtCongress created the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program in 1990 to provide funding for airports' capital improvement projects and to increase competition between air carriers. While PFCs are local funds, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversees the program. Since 1990, FAA has approved the collection of $103.2 billion in PFC fees, which air carriers collect through passenger tickets and remit to public agencies (airport operators). To be eligible for PFC funding, public agency projects must (1) preserve or enhance the safety, security, or capacity of the national air transportation system; (2) reduce or mitigate airport noise; or (3) promote competition between or among air carriers. Given the public's involvement with PFCs and the substantial dollars the program generates, we initiated this audit; our objective was to review FAA's administration and oversight of airport operators' compliance with the use of PFC funds.What We FoundMost public agencies comply with PFC program requirements, but FAA could use available tools more effectively to strengthen its oversight. For example, to assess compliance, FAA reviews public agencies' independent audit reports, but it does not ensure that those reports are timely or complete. FAA also lacks procedures for documenting public agency data in its database. As a result, the Agency does not require its Airport District Offices to verify that expenditure information is accurate or to record the receipt of audit reports and status of audit findings. Finally, while FAA officials work closely with public agency personnel to ensure that proposed projects are PFC eligible, the Agency does not have a process for determining whether completed projects meet PFC program goals.Our RecommendationsWe made six recommendations to improve FAA's administration and oversight of the PFC program. FAA fully concurred with two recommendations and partially concurred with three, but did not concur with our final recommendation.

Our objective was to determine whether travel, representation, and office expense reimbursements, requested by Postal Service officers during fiscal year (FY) 2018, were supported and complied with Postal Service guidelines.

The Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) requires each agency’s Inspector General (IG) to conduct an annual independent evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the information security program (ISP) and practices of its respective agency. Our objective was to evaluate the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) ISP and agency practices for ensuring compliance with FISMA and applicable standards, including guidelines issued by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and National Institute of Standards and Technology. Our audit scope was limited to answering the FY2018 IG FISMA metrics developed as a collaborative effort by the OMB, Department of Homeland Security, and Council of Inspector Generals on Integrity and Efficiency in consultation with the Federal Chief Information Officer Council. The FY2018 IG FISMA metrics recommend a majority of the functions be at a maturity level 4 (managed and measurable) or higher to be considered effective. Based on our analysis of the metrics and associated maturity levels defined within the FY2018 IG FISMA metrics, we found TVA’s ISP was operating in an effective manner.

Report file size exceeds upload limit.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit to determine whether the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) adjusted compensation benefits in the Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance (DEA) Program in a timely manner and accurately processed benefits payments. The DEA Program is VA’s second-largest education program with more than $553 million in benefits paid in fiscal year 2017. The DEA Program provides monthly payments for education and training to eligible dependents and spouses of veterans who have permanent and total service-related medical conditions and receive compensation at the 100-percent disability level. Also, veterans with dependent children 18 to 23 years old attending school are eligible to receive an additional allowance in their disability compensation benefits. However, the veteran cannot receive the additional allowance at the same time the dependent children receive DEA benefits. The OIG found that delays in the processing of DEA benefit adjustments led to overpayments totaling approximately $4.5 million through February 1, 2018. Continued delays could result in an estimated $22.5 million in improper payments over a five-year period. Causes include the lack of management over the electronic mailboxes at the regional and national levels, an ineffective notification process, and the lack of system functionality to flag cases with duplication of benefits. In addition, some workload distribution rules caused cases not to be distributed when ready for processing. The OIG recommended that VBA ensure monitoring of electronic mailboxes and timeliness of compensation adjustments, implement a process to ensure receipt of DEA Program benefit notifications by regional staff, develop electronic system functionality to identify cases with potential duplication of benefits, process DEA benefit adjustments as soon as they are ready, and take prompt action to adjust benefits for cases in the OIG sample in which payment duplications had not been identified.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a focused evaluation of the quality of care delivered in the inpatient and outpatient settings of the Iowa City VA Health Care System. The review covered key clinical and administrative processes associated with promoting quality care—Leadership and Organizational Risks; Quality, Safety, and Value; Credentialing and Privileging; Environment of Care; Medication Management: Controlled Substances Inspection Program; Mental Health: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Care; Long-term Care: Geriatric Evaluations; Women’s Health: Mammography Results and Follow-up; and High-risk Processes: Central Line-associated Bloodstream Infections. The Facility had generally stable executive leadership since September 2017 and active engagement with employees and patients as evidenced by satisfaction scores. The OIG reviewed accreditation agency findings, sentinel events, disclosure of adverse patient events, Patient Safety Indicator data, and Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) results and did not identify any significant organizational risk factors. Although the leadership team was knowledgeable about selected SAIL metrics, the leaders should continue to take actions to improve care and maintain performance of selected Quality of Care and Efficiency metrics that are likely contributing to the improvement from the previous “2-Star” rating to the current “3-Star” rating. The OIG noted findings in three of the clinical operations reviewed and issued three recommendations that are attributable to the Director and Chief of Staff. The identified areas with deficiencies are: (1) Credentialing and Privileging • Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation process (2) Medication Management: Controlled Substances Inspection Program • Reconciliation of controlled substance returns to pharmacy stock (3) Long-term Care: Geriatric Evaluations • Program oversight and evaluation