On December 30, 2004, Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag officially
released the Fiscal
Year 2004 audit of the state's $6.1 billion (50 percent federal funds)
annual Medicaid program. Among the 22 audit findings issued against
the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) for its handling of
the Medicaid program, the state auditor (SAO) took the highly unusual
step of "disclaiming" the entire Medicaid program.
SAO noted: "Disclaim' is a term used in auditing standards that
means we cannot conclude, based on documentation and other evidence we were
provided, whether all of these costs were allowable or whether all clients
were eligible for services given to them and all providers were eligible
for payments made to them."
SAO's official Medicaid audit release follows the unprecedented
public release of the audit's draft findings by DSHS on the agency's
website on December 14, 2004. According to SAO, some of these draft
findings were altered by DSHS.
The findings the Department of Social and Health Services released
on its website on December 14, 2004, were preliminary drafts and were
not completed. In addition, some of the findings the Department presented
were worded differently from the drafts we gave the Department at the
exit conference on November 24, 2004. The following document is the
State Auditor's Office official special report on our audit of the Medicaid
Program for fiscal year 2004.
Among the audit's official findings, DSHS:
paid $22 million to individuals who did not provide valid Social
Security Numbers (SSN) or offered no SSN at all;
paid more than $1 million to individuals claiming a deceased relative's
SSN;
provided $1.3 million in unallowable medical services to illegal
aliens;
cannot account for more than 1.4 million in pills worth in excess
of $529,000; and
did not cooperate with SAO's audit, leading to the disclaiming
of the $6.1 billion Medicaid program.
Regarding the lack of cooperation extended by DSHS, SAO made the following
statements throughout its audit:
[DSHS] personnel attempted to thwart particular audit
procedures by questioning our authority to either expand the scope
of our audit or to obtain certain information.
[DSHS] altered information related to sample transactions
while we were attempting to complete our review.
In some instances, we were unable to independently interview
line staff without the presence of management or without management's
selection of the employees to be interviewed.
Staff members informed us that they had to obtain permission
from management prior to speaking with auditors. During our review of
the allowability of certain medical procedures and of procedures provided
to undocumented aliens, we were never granted permission to speak
with the medical consultants who had approval authority.
The audit liaison system, as actually used by the Department,
hindered our access to data and obstructed our contact with line staff.
Additionally, the audit liaison system attempted to force us to rely on
the Department's representations as to the existence or accuracy of evidence.
In effect, the Department was attempting to perform the work of the
auditor, instead of allowing the auditors to perform an independent audit
and reach a valid conclusion.
It is inappropriate for the Department to withhold information
because it believes it is not relevant or significant. The auditor
should be given the information requested and have an opportunity to examine
it and discuss it with the Department before the auditor decides its importance.
Auditors of the Medicaid Program were subjected to undue
criticism of their integrity, independence, competence, objectivity, and
knowledge. These charges against audit staff were made both in person
and through e-mail, and we believe they were intended to deter us from
completing our audit.
It is worth noting the contrasting attitude displayed by the Department
of Health (DOH) in response to one audit finding issued jointly against
DOH and DSHS: "We concur with the finding of the State Auditor's Office
. . . Thank you for the professional work by your staff." Despite DOH's
acceptance of the audit finding, DSHS did not concur with the finding.
With Washington's $6.1 billion Medicaid program at risk, legislators must
finally exercise long overdue oversight and ensure audit
corrective action occurs. Many of the findings issued against DSHS in
SAO's 2004 audit are repeats from previous years. By making an example out
of DSHS, legislators would also send a strong message to other state agencies
that frustrating the efforts of the people's elected auditor will not be
tolerated. Accountability and transparency for tax dollars must be the first
responsibility of all state officials.
Prepared by: Jason
Mercier | Budget Research Analyst | 360.956.3482
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"