Federal Reports

This Office of Inspector General (OIG) Care in the Community healthcare inspection program report describes the results of a focused evaluation of community care processes at eight Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 10: VA Healthcare System Serving Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan medical facilities with a community care program. 

This evaluation focused on five domains:
   •    Leadership and Administration of Community Care
   •    Administratively Closed Community Care Consults
   •    Community Care Provider Requests for Additional Services
   •    Care Coordination Activities for Patients Referred for Community Care
   •    Community Urgent Care Coordination and Management

The OIG issued 16 recommendations for VA to correct identified deficiencies in the five domains:
   •    Leadership and Administration of Community Care
     o    Community oversight councils
     o    Community care clinical staffing needs
     o    Patient safety events
     o    Patient safety trends, lessons learned, and corrective actions
     o    Community care document importing
   •    Administratively Closed Community Care Consults
     o    Community care appointment confirmation
     o    Medical documents
   •    Community Care Provider Requests for Additional Services
     o    Request processing
     o    Request incorporation in the electronic health record
     o    Provider signature verification
     o    Approval letters for community providers and patients
   •    Care Coordination Activities for Patients Referred for Community Care
     o    Community Care–Care Coordination Plan note use to document care coordination activities
     o    Appointment attendance confirmation
   •    Community Urgent Care Coordination and Management
     o    Urgent care visit notification process
     o    Community Care–Urgent Care Record note creation

As required by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), OIG reviewed USDA’s ongoing efforts to improve its information technology security program and practices during FY 2025.

Our Objective(s)To assess FAA's oversight of SkyWest Airlines' maintenance practices. Specifically, we evaluated FAA's actions to address SkyWest's maintenance noncompliance and violations.
Why This AuditAviation safety is FAA's priority for the 2.9 million passengers that take 45,000 flights a day in the National Airspace System. In prior audits, we found weaknesses in FAA's oversight of maintenance at other airlines. We initiated this audit as part of our ongoing work reviewing FAA's oversight of air carrier maintenance programs.
What We FoundFAA's oversight of SkyWest's maintenance practices does not fully comply with Agency guidance.

FAA's Certificate Management Office (CMO) has not resolved issues with SkyWest's remote return to service maintenance practices for over 4 years.
The CMO also does not always adhere to FAA guidance when addressing SkyWest's noncompliance; CMO leaders are directing inspectors to use a method not included in FAA guidance to achieve compliance.
Delays in the CMO's access to SkyWest's data, CMO leadership and staff turnover, and ineffective communication have also slowed the resolution of SkyWest's noncompliance.
CMO inspectors do not always identify recurring noncompliance; CMO leaders may not be using the most effective tools to address repetitive noncompliance with more comprehensive solutions.
FAA's Safety Assurance System database surveillance documentation options do not fully align with FAA guidance.

RecommendationsWe made 7 recommendations to improve FAA's oversight of SkyWest Airlines' maintenance.

Our Objective(s)To assess FHWA's processes and procedures for overseeing grant recipient compliance with Federal Buy America requirements. Our assessment included reviews of FHWA's (1) guidance on Buy America requirements and (2) oversight of Federal-aid recipients' compliance.
Why This AuditFHWA's Buy America law and regulations require highway projects funded under Title 23 of United States Code to use only iron, steel, and manufactured products produced in the United States. Due to the high level of investment in surface transportation, we initiated this audit.
What We FoundFHWA provided insufficient guidance on Buy America requirements to its Federal-aid recipients.

FHWA's guidance to State Departments of Transportation (State DOTs) and local agencies lacks detail on how to certify highway project materials' compliance with Buy America requirements.
Because there were gaps in FHWA Buy America guidance, we found weaknesses in the procedures developed by the State DOTs and local agencies that we reviewed-Texas, Washington, and Seattle-and issues concerning Buy America compliance in their projects.
FHWA also did not provide adequate guidance on its minimal use threshold for foreign materials.

FHWA did not perform adequate oversight of Federal-aid recipients' Buy America compliance.

Neither FHWA Headquarters nor its Divisions' periodic reviews, such as Compliance Assessment Program reviews, consistently address Buy America requirements.
The Division Offices' risk-based project-level reviews may overlook Buy America compliance.

RecommendationsWe made six recommendations to improve FHWA's oversight of Federal-aid recipients' compliance with Buy America requirements.

Why We Did This Report

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General conducted this evaluation to determine whether the EPA has used available resources, including funds appropriated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, to improve the permitting of Class VI wells under its Underground Injection Control Program.
 

Summary of Findings

The EPA met Congress’s intent to spend annual and supplemental appropriations to grow Class VI Program expertise and capacity and improve Class VI permitting with one exception. It did not spend $1.2 million of fiscal year 2023 annual appropriations within the available time frame for their intended purpose: to support training for personnel who regulate Class VI wells. Otherwise, the Agency successfully used annual appropriations to, among other things, increase the number of staff focused on Class VI work, enhance its data and information management tools, and develop additional guidance for Class VI Program implementation.

This report provides the results of Objective 1, in which we determined whether the State of Florida used Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS) SNAP administrative funds to provide benefits to participants.