Audit 307896

FY End
2021-06-30
Total Expended
$2.09M
Findings
2
Programs
3
Year: 2021 Accepted: 2024-06-03
Auditor: Forvis LLP

Organization Exclusion Status:

Checking exclusion status...

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
399392 2021-002 Material Weakness - ABL
975834 2021-002 Material Weakness - ABL

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
93.498 Provider Relief Fund $1.98M Yes 1
93.889 National Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness Program $17,214 - 0
93.301 Small Rural Hospital Improvement Grant Program $10,077 - 0

Contacts

Name Title Type
TUMPH1EPMD11 Dennis Boyd Auditee
8009422904 Jessica Elsberry Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: Note 1: Basis of Presentation Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported in 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. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The Authority has elected not to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the Schedule) includes the federal award actiity of The Seiling Municipal Hospital Authority (the Authority) under programs of the federal government for the year ended June 30, 2021. The information 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 the Authority, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in financial position, or cash flows of the Authority.
Title: Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported in 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. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The Authority has elected not to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. Expenditures reported in 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.
Title: Note 3: Indirect Cost Rate Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported in 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. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The Authority has elected not to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. The Authority has elected not to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance.

Finding Details

Federal Program – COVID-19 – Provider Relief Fund, ALN 93.498, Award Year 2021 Criteria or Specific Requirement – Activities Allowed/Allowable Costs and Reporting – Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 563. Condition – Expenditures reported to Health Resources & Services Administrator (HRSA) were not in accordance with Pub L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 563. Questioned Costs – $1,367,491 was the total amount of expenses determined to be over-reported for the federal program. This was calculated by multiplying the Authority’s estimated Medicare cost reimbursement rate (68.99%) by total expenses reported. Context – The Authority included expenditures that were reimbursed or should be reimbursed based on recaptured depreciation reimbursed by Medicare under a cost-reimbursement methodology. HRSA frequently asked questions (FAQs) state that “if the full cost were reimbursed based upon” such a method, “there is nothing eligible to report as a Provider Relief Fund (PRF) or ARP Rural expense attributable to coronavirus because the expense was fully reimbursed by another source.” While this specific FAQ was not added until October 2021, it was a clarifying FAQ and guidance had previously been provided that cost-reimbursed expenses would not also be eligible for PRF reimbursement. Effect – Expenditures reported to HRSA were overstated. Cause – Changes to FAQs and guidance from HRSA and management’s inexperience with the program reporting requirements resulted in a material error of expenditures under the program. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable – N/A Recommendation – Management should implement documented internal control processes specific to understanding and reporting of program expenditures, including review and oversight of data uploads prior to submission. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – Management disagrees with the above finding and believes that all expenditures reported to HRSA were fully allowable. The criteria for use of the PRF changed subsequent to the receipt and expenditure by the Hospital. Management utilized the best information available at the time, during the early days of the public health emergency, in its use of the funds. Management consistently reviews the FAQs for PRF distributions maintained by HRSA for guidance on changes and clarification to the rules surrounding the program. In October 2021—long after most critical access hospitals (CAH), including the Hospital, had expended their initial PRF distributions—HRSA added an FAQ addressing cost-based reimbursement, specifically, “How does cost-based reimbursement relate to my Provider Relief Fund payment?” HRSA subsequently has made minor modifications to the language of this FAQ—most recently on October 27, 2022—but the substantive guidance has remained the same. Unlike electronic health record capital equipment, for which specific cost report guidance was provided, no such guidance was provided for assets purchased to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. Neither Prospective Payment System (PPS) nor CAH facilities were required to offset the full amount of funds received because they were considered grants, consistent with the treatment of PRF distributions. Auditor’s Response – The Authority included expenditures that were reimbursed or should be reimbursed based on recaptured depreciation reimbursed by Medicare under a cost reimbursement methodology. HRSA FAQs state that “if the full cost were reimbursed based upon” such a method, “there is nothing eligible to report as a Provider Relief Fund or ARP Rural expense attributable to coronavirus because the expense was fully reimbursed by another source.” While this specific FAQ was not added until October 2021, it was a clarifying FAQ and guidance had previously been provided that cost-reimbursed expenses would not also be eligible for PRF reimbursement.
Federal Program – COVID-19 – Provider Relief Fund, ALN 93.498, Award Year 2021 Criteria or Specific Requirement – Activities Allowed/Allowable Costs and Reporting – Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 563. Condition – Expenditures reported to Health Resources & Services Administrator (HRSA) were not in accordance with Pub L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 563. Questioned Costs – $1,367,491 was the total amount of expenses determined to be over-reported for the federal program. This was calculated by multiplying the Authority’s estimated Medicare cost reimbursement rate (68.99%) by total expenses reported. Context – The Authority included expenditures that were reimbursed or should be reimbursed based on recaptured depreciation reimbursed by Medicare under a cost-reimbursement methodology. HRSA frequently asked questions (FAQs) state that “if the full cost were reimbursed based upon” such a method, “there is nothing eligible to report as a Provider Relief Fund (PRF) or ARP Rural expense attributable to coronavirus because the expense was fully reimbursed by another source.” While this specific FAQ was not added until October 2021, it was a clarifying FAQ and guidance had previously been provided that cost-reimbursed expenses would not also be eligible for PRF reimbursement. Effect – Expenditures reported to HRSA were overstated. Cause – Changes to FAQs and guidance from HRSA and management’s inexperience with the program reporting requirements resulted in a material error of expenditures under the program. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable – N/A Recommendation – Management should implement documented internal control processes specific to understanding and reporting of program expenditures, including review and oversight of data uploads prior to submission. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – Management disagrees with the above finding and believes that all expenditures reported to HRSA were fully allowable. The criteria for use of the PRF changed subsequent to the receipt and expenditure by the Hospital. Management utilized the best information available at the time, during the early days of the public health emergency, in its use of the funds. Management consistently reviews the FAQs for PRF distributions maintained by HRSA for guidance on changes and clarification to the rules surrounding the program. In October 2021—long after most critical access hospitals (CAH), including the Hospital, had expended their initial PRF distributions—HRSA added an FAQ addressing cost-based reimbursement, specifically, “How does cost-based reimbursement relate to my Provider Relief Fund payment?” HRSA subsequently has made minor modifications to the language of this FAQ—most recently on October 27, 2022—but the substantive guidance has remained the same. Unlike electronic health record capital equipment, for which specific cost report guidance was provided, no such guidance was provided for assets purchased to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. Neither Prospective Payment System (PPS) nor CAH facilities were required to offset the full amount of funds received because they were considered grants, consistent with the treatment of PRF distributions. Auditor’s Response – The Authority included expenditures that were reimbursed or should be reimbursed based on recaptured depreciation reimbursed by Medicare under a cost reimbursement methodology. HRSA FAQs state that “if the full cost were reimbursed based upon” such a method, “there is nothing eligible to report as a Provider Relief Fund or ARP Rural expense attributable to coronavirus because the expense was fully reimbursed by another source.” While this specific FAQ was not added until October 2021, it was a clarifying FAQ and guidance had previously been provided that cost-reimbursed expenses would not also be eligible for PRF reimbursement.