FAC Explorer

Audit 303631

FY End
2023-10-31
Total Expended
$2.27M
Findings
2
Programs
3
Organization: Community Health & Wellness Partners of Logan County (OH)
Year: 2023 Accepted: 2024-04-16
Auditor: Cliftonlarsonallen LLP

Organization Exclusion Status:

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
393374 2023-001 Significant Deficiency - L
969816 2023-001 Significant Deficiency - L

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
93.354 Public Health Emergency Response: Cooperative Agreement for Emergency Response: Public Health Crisis Response $300,408 - 0
93.498 Provider Relief Fund $214,891 Yes 1
93.224 Consolidated Health Centers (community Health Centers, Migrant Health Centers, Health Care for the Homeless, and Public Housing Primary Care) $19,850 Yes 0

Contacts

Name Title Type
HJ4JRMNGCU41 Jeff Forman Auditee
9375991411 Diann Stretten Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: Provider Relief Funds Accounting Policies: Summary of significant accounting policies Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. Basis of presentation The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the Schedule) includes the federal award activity of Community Health & Wellness Partners of Logan County, under programs of the federal government for the year ended October 31, 2023. The information in this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of Community Health & Wellness Partners of Logan County, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net assets, or cash flows of Community Health & Wellness Partners of Logan County. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: Community Health & Wellness Partners of Logan County has elected not to use the ten-percent de minimis indirect cost rate as allowed under the Uniform Guidance. The Organization received $214,891 in DHHS Provider Relief Fund (PRF) (Federal Financial Assistance Listing #93.498) during the year ended October 31, 2022. The Organization incurred eligible expenditures, including lost revenue and therefore recognized the revenue of $214,891 on the statement of activities for the year ended October 31, 2022. However, the PRF expenditures were not recognized on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2022, as the PRF reporting period for Phase 4 is after October 31, 2022. Accordingly, the amounts expended under the PRF program are included in the SEFA for the year ended October 31, 2023.

Finding Details

Finding 2023-001
Finding 2023-001 Federal program and specific federal award U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 93.498 Provider Relief Fund and American Rescue Plan Rural Distribution Specific requirement Special Reporting of Provider Relief Funds (PRF) Reporting Portal Condition Under the terms and conditions of the Provider Relief Funds “option 2” for calculation of lost revenue using budgeted revenue compared to actual revenue, the amounts used for the budget must be based on a board approved budget prior to March 27, 2020, which covers the period of availability. The Organization utilized a budget for the period November 1, 2019, through October 31, 2020 that was board approved prior to March 27, 2020; however, the budget periods of November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2021 and November 1, 2021 through October 31, 2022 were not board approved prior to March 27, 2020. Accordingly, option 3 should have been indicated in the PRF reporting portal. In addition, it was noted that there was not a separate review of the information submitted to the reporting portal. Cause Due to the complexity of the PRF Reporting Requirements, the Organization made an error in selecting option 2 as the reporting method and there was not a second review of the information reported in the PRF reporting portal before submission. Effect or potential effect Option 2 verses Option 3 was selected on PRF reporting portal. Questioned costs None Repeat finding No Recommendation We recommend that management further review terms and conditions of grant reporting requirements and include others within the Organization to provide monitoring and oversight of reporting submissions. Management response Management agreed with the above comment and will include the involvement of the CEO or a Finance Committee member to review reporting submissions for all grant awards. Due to the unusual nature of the PRF reporting, we believe this issue of noncompliance is isolated.
Finding 2023-001
Finding 2023-001 Federal program and specific federal award U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 93.498 Provider Relief Fund and American Rescue Plan Rural Distribution Specific requirement Special Reporting of Provider Relief Funds (PRF) Reporting Portal Condition Under the terms and conditions of the Provider Relief Funds “option 2” for calculation of lost revenue using budgeted revenue compared to actual revenue, the amounts used for the budget must be based on a board approved budget prior to March 27, 2020, which covers the period of availability. The Organization utilized a budget for the period November 1, 2019, through October 31, 2020 that was board approved prior to March 27, 2020; however, the budget periods of November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2021 and November 1, 2021 through October 31, 2022 were not board approved prior to March 27, 2020. Accordingly, option 3 should have been indicated in the PRF reporting portal. In addition, it was noted that there was not a separate review of the information submitted to the reporting portal. Cause Due to the complexity of the PRF Reporting Requirements, the Organization made an error in selecting option 2 as the reporting method and there was not a second review of the information reported in the PRF reporting portal before submission. Effect or potential effect Option 2 verses Option 3 was selected on PRF reporting portal. Questioned costs None Repeat finding No Recommendation We recommend that management further review terms and conditions of grant reporting requirements and include others within the Organization to provide monitoring and oversight of reporting submissions. Management response Management agreed with the above comment and will include the involvement of the CEO or a Finance Committee member to review reporting submissions for all grant awards. Due to the unusual nature of the PRF reporting, we believe this issue of noncompliance is isolated.