Federal Reports

Administrative costs Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corporation claimed on its fiscal year 2013 final administrative cost proposal were generally allowable and in accordance with its Medicare contract and applicable Federal regulations. Of the $29.2 million reviewed, we accepted $27.7 million as allowable, allocable, and reasonable and questioned the remaining $1.5 million as unallowable costs.

The primary objectives of the audit were to determine whether program funds were managed

Illinois did not comply with Federal waiver and State requirements in overseeing centers that serve vulnerable adults who receive services through the Elderly Waiver program. We determined that 18 of the 20 centers we reviewed did not comply with 1 or more State requirements. Specifically, we found 105 instances of noncompliance with health and safety and administrative requirements.

We included an audit of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) capital projects post projects economic assessment process in our annual audit plan because of the capital-intensive nature of the electric utility industry. TVA spent $2.076 billion on capital expenditures in fiscal year (FY) 2017 and anticipates capital expenditures of $1.974, $1.885, and $1.706 billion, respectively, in FYs 2018, 2019, and 2020. Our audit objective was to determine if TVA adequately monitors the actual return on investment of capital projects compared to those submitted during the budgeting and project review processes. We found TVA is not adequately monitoring actual return on investment of capital projects. Specifically, TVA Standard Programs and Processes requiring the assessments do not provide adequate guidance. We also found the required post-project benefits assessments were generally not being performed as only 1 assessment was performed in FYs 2015 through 2017 out of 22 projects completed. In addition, we found the estimated benefits in the project justification for the 1 assessment performed were not valid. Accordingly, the post-project assessment’s basis for comparison was not valid.