October 11, 2019

Audits issued by the New York State Comptroller during the week ending October 11, 2019


On October 9, 2019 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and examinations have been issued. Click on the text highlighted in color below to access entire report.

A report issued in February 2018 identified a risk that providers could exceed their maximum cost per child if they were serving significantly fewer children and did not reduce their expenditures proportionately. Based on observations of program attendance at selected providers, the cost per child on five contracts ranged from $1,981 to $5,332. Auditors also identified $38,514 paid to six providers for program expenses that could not be supported or included errors. In a follow-up, auditors found OCFS has made progress in addressing the problems identified in the 2018 audit.

Auditors identified over $5.7 million in Medicaid payments that require DOH’s prompt attention, including: $1.9 million that was paid for inpatient claims that were billed at a higher level of care than what was actually provided; $1.4 million was paid for newborn birth claims that contained inaccurate birth information; and $1 million was paid for practitioner, pharmacy, inpatient, lab, and clinic claims that did not comply with Medicaid policies.

An audit issued in September 2017 found the authority did not have a developed information security policy that addressed all the requirements in the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council. It could also improve certain other technical safeguards over the cardholder data it processes. In a follow-up, auditors found the authority made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit. 

An audit, covering the period April 1, 2012through Feb. 5, 2015, found significant weaknesses in the internal controls over the special hauling permits issued by four DOT regional offices. This included poor accountability over permits issued and fees collected, a lack of segregation of duties for permit transactions, and minimal oversight by management at both the central and regional levels. In a follow-up, auditors found that DOT has implemented the recommendations from the original audit.

A review of $8 million in spending between April 2016 and September 2018 uncovered various issues within its procurement processes, leading auditors to question whether $895,839 was spent appropriately and in the best interest of the state. Buffalo’s poor monitoring of spending and contracting practices resulted in potential lost savings and cost avoidance, overcharges by vendors, and purchases that lack support for business need or reasonableness of price.

Insufficient HR monitoring and oversight and poorly enforced policies and procedures have contributed to questionable and weak practices that render Upstate vulnerable to misuse of funds and security risks. For example, Upstate paid 12 employees a total of $4.7 million in additional compensation for work beyond their regular job duties but did not maintain adequate documentation to support either the basis for the dollar amount or the additional duties that employees were tasked with. Upstate has not established policies or procedures for alternate work (off-campus) assignments. Additionally SUNY System Administration continued to pay a former president her presidential salary of $608,000 while she was on leave in the job title of special assistant to the president. 


CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material in this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor members of the staff are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is advised to seek such advice from a competent professional.