Federal Reports

The OIG investigated allegations that three supervisors in a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) regional office were involved in a variety of incidents that included misusing and failing to properly account for the office’s specialized communications vehicles, misusing take-home Government-owned vehicles (GOVs), and improperly purchasing items with Government funds to give as gifts to local law enforcement agencies.We found no evidence that the office’s specialized communications vehicles had been misused, but the BIA did not consistently require operational plans for the vehicles’ use. We also found that after one of the three supervisors accidentally caused $10,500 in damage to one of the vehicles in 2016, his managers did not follow BIA property management policy, because they did not inquire about the accident.Our investigation identified one example of misuse of a take-home GOV, when one of the three supervisors acknowledged occasionally making personal stops in his GOV on his way home from work. U.S. Department of the Interior policy prohibits personal use of GOVs.Finally, we found no evidence that any of the supervisors used Government funds to purchase gifts to give to local law enforcement entities.

objectives of our audit were to assess (1) whether the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) process for recognizing accrediting agencies ensured that agencies met the Federal recognition criteria and (2) the extent that the Department monitored agencies during the period of recognition. We found that as of June 2017, the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) had a formal process for reviewing agency petitions for recognition that incorporated the petition review procedures required under Title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 602.32 (34 C.F.R. § 602.32). However, OPE’s process did not provide reasonable assurance that the Department recognized only agencies meeting Federal recognition criteria. We also found that OPE’s post-recognition oversight is not adequate to ensure agencies consistently and effectively carry out their responsibilities. OPE does not have an adequate plan for the post-recognition oversight of agencies and does not regularly perform reviews of high-risk agencies during the recognition period. OPE takes a reactive approach to post-recognition oversight and performs oversight activities for an agency only if it is alerted that compliance or other issues may exist at that agency. This could result in no oversight for some agencies, including newly recognized or higher risk agencies, for up to 5 years. In addition, OPE’s oversight approach may not identify significant agency issues soon enough to mitigate or prevent potential harm to accredited schools, students, or taxpayers.

The U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General’s Investigations Newsletter highlights selected investigative accomplishments of our office for the period from April 1 to May 31, 2018.

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) substantiated an allegation that the VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System’s (System) prosthetics laboratory did not provide timely and cost-effective services to veterans for frequently prescribed compression garments and orthotic shoes. The laboratory showed a needlessly high reliance on outside vendors from October 2014 to May 2016 for items that it could have provided from existing stock. About 99 percent of prescribed compression garments and 75 percent of orthotic shoes, accounting for 91 percent of the System’s spending, went to vendors during this period. Sending veterans to outside vendors was not justified because the System had sufficient personnel and inventory to provide the prescribed compression socks and orthotic shoes. The OIG found that poor decision-making by laboratory employees, underutilized laboratory personnel, and unused inventory went undetected because the former chief of prosthetics did not effectively monitor the laboratory’s operations. The OIG also found that purchasing employees reported some cases were being closed prematurely using an incorrect program code indicating the veteran did not follow through with the consult. The OIG expanded the scope of the audit and found that the code was used incorrectly about 95 percent of the time resulting in a risk of delayed care for veterans. Since the audit period, a new chief of prosthetics has implemented sweeping changes to the laboratory. As a result of the changes, reliance on outside vendors dropped to 14 percent after June 2016. The OIG recommended that the VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System continue to improve its oversight and use of resources in the laboratory. Because the System’s previous chief of prosthetics is currently serving as the chief of prosthetics for the VA San Diego Healthcare System, the report includes similar recommendations for that organization.

The opioid crisis was recently declared a public health emergency. In 2016, more than 42,000 opioid-related overdose deaths occurred in the United States-115 deaths per day. This data brief is part of a larger strategy by OIG to fight the opioid crisis and protect beneficiaries from prescription drug misuse and abuse. This data brief provides 2017 data on the extent to which Medicare Part D beneficiaries receive extreme amounts of opioids or appear to be doctor shopping and compares these data to OIG's previous analysis of 2016. It also identifies prescribers who have questionable opioid prescribing.

This toolkit provides detailed steps for using prescription drug claims data to analyze patients' opioid levels and identify certain patients who are at risk of opioid misuse or overdose. It is based on the methodology that OIG has developed in our extensive work on opioids.This new OIG product provides highly technical information to support our public and private sector partners, such as Medicare Part D plan sponsors, private health plans, and State Medicaid Fraud Control Units. It is intended to assist our partners with analyzing their own prescription drug claims data to help combat the opioid crisis.