Latest news with #OfficeofInspectorGeneral
4 days ago
- Health
VA hospitals are finding it harder to fill jobs, watchdog says
NORFOLK, Va. -- Government-run medical centers serving the nation's veterans have reported an increase in severe staffing shortages, with many hospitals having trouble filling jobs for doctors, nurses and psychologists, according to an independent watchdog for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Tuesday's report from the VA's Office of Inspector General is based on surveys from late March and early April that were taken at 139 Veterans Health Administration facilities. Severe staffing shortages are not necessarily an indication of vacancies but refer to particular occupations that are difficult to fill. The surveys were taken just weeks after it was reported in early March that the VA had planned to cut 80,000 jobs — out of 484,000 — through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE. The VA later reduced the figure to nearly 30,000 jobs to be cut by this fiscal year's end on Sept. 30. President Donald Trump's administration said Tuesday that the surveys are unreliable because they do not reflect actual vacancies, which VA officials said were in line with historical averages. But Democratic lawmakers warned that veterans won't get the health care they need as VA positions become harder to fill. The surveys reflected a 50% increase in the reporting of severe staffing shortages for specific jobs, both for clinical occupations that include doctors and psychologists and for non-clinical jobs that include police and custodial workers. Nearly all of the facilities — 94% — reported a shortage for medical officer occupations that include doctors, while 79% reported shortages for nurses. The report noted that severe shortages for medical officers and nurses have been identified every year in the report since 2014. Pete Kasperowicz, the VA's press secretary, stressed in an email that the report is not based on vacancies and is therefore 'not a reliable indicator of staffing shortages.' 'The report simply lists occupations facilities feel are difficult for which to recruit and retain, so the results are completely subjective, not standardized and unreliable,' Kasperowicz wrote. He said that vacancy rates for doctors and nurses are 14% and 10%, respectively, which he said are lower than most other health care systems and in line with 'normal VA historical averages.' But Jacqueline Simon, policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees, said the surveys reflect the Trump administration's profound hostility toward the federal workforce and what she said are its plans to ultimately privatize the VA. 'This is a deliberate effort to incapacitate and to undermine veterans' support for and approval of the care they receive in VA hospitals and clinics,' Simon said. 'They'll have to wait much longer for appointments. There won't be specialists available. They'll have no choice but to go to the private sector.' Simon also noted the VA's announcement last week that it was terminating collective bargaining agreements for most VA bargaining-unit employees, which could further hurt recruitment. The VA said in a news release that the move will 'make it easier for VA leaders to promote high-performing employees, hold poor performers accountable, and improve benefits and services to America's Veterans.' But U.S. Sen. Mark Warner said in a news release Tuesday that the Trump administration has made it harder for public servants to do their jobs 'and ultimately harder for veterans to get the care they've earned.' 'We also know from recent jobs reports that applications to work at the VA are plummeting," said Warner, a Democrat who represents the veteran-dense state of Virginia. 'How do skyrocketing staffing shortages and declining applicant pools make it more 'efficient' for veterans to access the care and services they deserve? The answer is: they don't.'
Mint
09-08-2025
- Business
- Mint
Watchdog Probes FAA's Oversight of Skies Near Reagan Airport
(Bloomberg) -- A US government watchdog has launched an audit of the Federal Aviation Administration's oversight of the congested airspace around Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, after January's deadly midair collision. The Transportation Department's Office of Inspector General's Friday announcement comes a week after an investigative hearing on the midair collision between a US Army Black Hawk helicopter and American Airlines Group Inc. regional jet that killed 67 people. During the hearing, members of the National Transportation Safety Board, an independent government agency, grilled FAA officials on how they could have missed the problems that existed in the airspace around Reagan airport. After the accident, the NTSB identified more than 15,000 incidents between October 2021 and December 2024 where commercial planes and helicopters came within an unsafe distance. FAA leaders, including the regulator's Deputy Administrator Chris Rocheleau, have acknowledged that risks were missed and the agency needs to do better going forward. 'The inspector general will have the FAA's full support,' the agency said in a statement Friday. 'There must never be another tragedy like the one on January 29 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.' Since the midair collision, the FAA has restricted helicopter flights near the airport and curtailed exemptions that allow aircraft to fly without broadcasting their location using a technology known as ADS-B Out. The Army helicopter involved in the crash was equipped with but wasn't transmitting data via ADS-B Out on the night of the crash. An Army official said during last week's hearing that there was a technical issue preventing the Black Hawk's ADS-B Out from functioning properly, but the helicopter pilots also weren't required to have it turned on under the policies at that time. The Office of Inspector General said that as part of its audit, it's assessing the FAA's management of the airspace around Reagan airport, as well as policies and procedures for overseeing ADS-B Out exemptions. The watchdog said it plans to begin its review this month. (Adds FAA's statement in sixth paragraph.) More stories like this are available on
The Hill
24-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump document dumps raise questions of distraction
The Trump administration has moved to release tranches of documents from controversial past investigations amid increasing scrutiny into its handling of the Epstein investigation — prompting criticism that the White House is seeking a distraction. Last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released 114 pages of documents related to the investigation into Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election — something President Trump raised again this week when he said former President Obama was guilty of treason in connection with the matter. Then on Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi released an Office of Inspector General review into Hillary Clinton's private email server, sharing it with Congress. Hours later, Bondi and Gabbard released 230,000 pages related to the investigation into the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination. 'It doesn't take a whole lot of guesswork to say, 'Gee, do you think they kind of, maybe, sort of want to change the subject?'' said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has called for the release of financial records related to Jeffrey Epstein, given his numerous wire transfers. 'I'm just saying — just saying — maybe. Possibly. Conceivably. That could be it.' The flood of information has not gone unnoticed. 'They're not dumping documents. They're making up lies,' said Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. 'The Trump administration is constantly promising conspiracy and then failing to deliver, which is what they did with Epstein, which is now why we're creating a whole new conspiracy, which is that President Obama is guilty of treason. It's a Ponzi scheme of conspiracy theories.' When asked about Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump pivoted to talking about his predecessor. 'I don't really follow that too much. It's sort of a witch hunt. Just a continuation of the witch hunt. The witch hunt that you should be talking about is they caught President Obama absolutely cold.' In a rare public statement, Obama called the accusations against him an effort at distraction. 'Our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,' an Obama spokesperson said. 'But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.' It was Gabbard's Wednesday release of an additional classified report on the 2016 election put together by the House Intelligence Committee that most alarmed Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. 'The only thing not being released is the Epstein files. But today, today's action sets a new low for a DNI,' Warner said, using an abbreviation for director of national intelligence. 'Of course it's a distraction. But this one is so grossly over the top, that it will put people in harm's way,' he added, noting that the House report references intelligence sources and methods. Release of the documents gave MAGA influencers who were angry over the lack of Epstein disclosures for weeks a new topic — and grievance — to push. After Gabbard's first release, MAGA personalities called to arrest Obama administration officials and even the former president himself. A study by Media Matters found that Fox News had mentioned Obama three times more than Epstein since Gabbard released her report Friday. Conversations about the former president spiked overall — more than doubling in the days after the Friday release. But despite some conservative voices elevating Gabbard's releases, they have gotten mixed results. While some have called the releases an important form of transparency and a delivery on a campaign promise, that has not negated their interest in Epstein. House GOP leaders, for instance, moved to send members home for August recess a day early after disputes about the Epstein matter — and an unwillingness to face Democratic votes trying to squeeze Republicans on the Epstein issue — stymied the House. And the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Tuesday voted to subpoena Epstein's convicted ex-girlfriend Maxwell, following a motion from Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.). In a separate vote late Wednesday, another Oversight panel moved to subpoena the files, as well as information on other figures. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who has called for the release of numerous classified files and is leading an investigation into the JFK assassination, disputed that the timing had anything to do with Epstein. 'I know for a fact that the MLK documents were in the queue and scheduled for release, and so the timing was not obviously related,' Luna said. 'The MLK stuff was slated for release. … And then the Russia collusion evidence — documents of the hoax, actually, I also heard was scheduled for release. So I think that they're just trying to show that they're very transparent.' Luna said it was proper to subpoena Maxwell, though she added that it would be improper for the Epstein associate to receive a pardon. 'I maintain my same position — haven't changed. We should see the documents,' Luna said. For his part, Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) swiftly released the Clinton documents shared with him by Bondi. 'When you've been waiting eight years to get documents, you release them as soon as you get them,' he said. Still, others see the issue as a problem of the administration's own making after years of embracing and promoting conspiracy theories, including those about Epstein. 'They've got a problem,' a source close to the White House said on the sentiment inside the Trump team. 'It's a little bit of the chickens coming home to roost. When you populate your administration [full] of people who propagated this and then all of a sudden, they hold the keys to the kingdom, now the true believers who aren't in government want to say, 'OK, open it up.' At some point this is where the ideal of the campaign, the promises made in the campaign, actually come home to roost. There may be nothing there, but they created a cloud in expectations that there was something there,' the source close to the White House said. 'Whenever Trump is truly in trouble, he changes the story by whatever means necessary,' added one longtime GOP lobbyist. It's not clear that the strategy is working. 'They are releasing these other files, but they're refusing to release the files they promised their base, the Epstein files. I think they're digging their hole deeper,' said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a former House Intelligence Chair amid the GOP investigation into the 2016 election. He noted that the latest information implies intelligence leaders mishandled the investigation by noting that Russia never accessed vote totals — something that was never in dispute. 'They're damned by the implication that they're pushing out all this other stuff, and they're still refusing to release the Epstein files.'
Yahoo
16-07-2025
- Yahoo
Federal grand jury indicts five in Alabama cockfighting and gambling case. What we know
A federal grand jury has indicted five people in connection with what prosecutors call a massive illegal cockfighting operation in Blount County, Alabama, violating both the Animal Welfare Act and laws against illegal gambling. Between March 2025 and June 2025, James Murphree, Kasten Murphree, Kelby Murphree, Danny Gonzalez-Guzman and Kimberly Evans allegedly organized multiple cockfighting derbies in Blountsville, according to the indictment. Spectators paid $40 to attend, while competitors paid entry fees ranging from $70 to $1,000 to enter their roosters. Winners took home a share of the prize money. The long-term investigation was conducted by the Gulf of America Homeland Security Task Force in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of Inspector General and the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency. What is cockfighting? Cockfighting is a contest in which two roosters are forced to fight, often to death, while spectators place bets on the outcome. The events are also known as "derbies," and they're held in arenas called "pits," while referees supervise the fights. The roosters are often fitted with weapons, such as sharp blades or spurs, on the back of their leg to make the match bloodier. What is the Animal Welfare Act? The Animal Welfare Act, first passed in 1966, was the first federal law regulating the treatment of animals in research. Today, it also covers animal breeders, dealers, handlers, carriers and exhibitors. The law sets minimum standards for essential services, including housing, food, sanitation, veterinary care and protection from extreme weather. What are the penalties for cockfighting? According to the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Alabama has the weakest penalties for cockfighting in the nation. Under state law, it's just a misdemeanor, punishable by a $50 fine. In contrast, federal law treats cockfighting as a serious felony, with penalties of up to five years in prison and fines of $250,000. Even attending a cockfight can carry a one-year prison sentence and bringing a child under 16 to a derby can lead to jail time. Alabama cockfighting empire included arena, weapons sales and bird breeding In December 2022, seven Alabama residents were sentenced for a large-scale illegal cockfighting operation. Between 2018 and 2021, members of the Easterling family operated one of the most significant known cockfighting operations in the country, according to court records. Their Alabama arena hosted paid-entry fights with bladed roosters and seating for 150 spectators. The family also ran two large breeding farms, selling high-priced birds for fighting. The arena was torn down as part of a plea deal. Jennifer Lindahl is a Breaking and Trending Reporter for the Deep South Connect Team for Gannett/USA Today. Connect with her on X @jenn_lindahl and email at jlindahl@ This article originally appeared on The Tuscaloosa News: What is cockfighting? Alabama ring leads to federal charges. What to know Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
08-07-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Why Democrats don't care about most health care fraud
One thing has become clear in the debate over President Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill': Democrats don't really care about waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid or Affordable Care Act coverage (i.e., ObamaCare). That's obvious from their opposition to Republican efforts to audit those programs to ensure only eligible people are enrolled. To be fair, Democrats do care about health care fraud if a private health insurer or drug company is accused of defrauding a government health care program, regardless of how tenuous or unsubstantiated the accusations. But the real fraud arises from millions of ineligible people being enrolled in Medicaid and Obamacare. That's why it's important to regularly audit means-tested health care programs, just as it's important to regularly audit voter rolls — which Democrats and liberal groups also oppose — because populations change. Some Medicaid or Obamacare beneficiaries or their spouses may take jobs that provide health coverage. Or their incomes may rise above the limit. Or they may turn 65 and enroll in Medicare, or they move out of state without notifying officials. And, of course, some die. There can be honest mistakes, but fraud appears to be widespread. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General published a report in 2022 covering four states — New York, California, Colorado and Kentucky — estimating the number of ineligible Medicaid beneficiaries in 2014 and 2015. The Office of Inspector General discovered federal Medicaid payments for new beneficiaries 'totaling almost $1.4 billion for more than 700,000 ineligible or potentially ineligible beneficiaries.' For those who weren't newly enrolled, the Office of Inspector General found Medicaid spent '$5 billion for almost 5 million ineligible or potentially ineligible beneficiaries.' Note the study covered only four states, and it was five years before the pandemic-related Medicaid expansion. We can assume from the report that there're likely millions of ineligible Medicaid beneficiaries across the country. As for ObamaCare, the Paragon Health Institute recently released its 2025 update of a 2024 report looking at ineligible people enrolled in the program. 'We estimate, conservatively, that improper [ACA] enrollment — defined as enrollees who claimed but did not actually have income between 100 and 150 percent of [the federal poverty level] — increased from 5.0 million enrollees in 2024 to 6.4 million enrollees in 2025. We estimate that the taxpayer cost of improper enrollment will exceed $27 billion this year.' Elected leaders who care about program integrity and fiscal responsibility should want regular checks to ensure people aren't gaming the system and abusing taxpayer dollars. So, why do Democrats generally oppose efforts to identify ineligible beneficiaries in government health insurance programs? First, Democrats increasingly embrace government-run health care. According to a December Gallup poll, '90% of Democrats who now say the government should ensure health coverage for all is the highest Gallup has measured for the group to date.' Republicans polled at 32 percent. Most Democrats don't care if millions of ineligible people are in ObamaCare or Medicaid because they think everyone should be in a government-run health plan. What's a little fraud, if the end goal is being achieved? So, they respond to Republican eligibility checks by claiming 'people will die' and changes will hurt rural hospitals that depend on Medicaid. The real problem facing rural hospitals is government-imposed Medicaid price controls. The Texas Hospital Association explains that Medicaid hospital reimbursement, on average, 'covers 72 percent of inpatient care costs and 75 percent of outpatient care costs for Medicaid clients. This underpayment leaves Texas hospitals with a multibillion-dollar Medicaid shortfall.' Second, there are significant economic benefits in ignoring health care fraud. Both Medicaid and Obamacare come with substantial taxpayer-funded subsidies. Nearly every state games the Medicaid system to increase its share of federal subsidies. The more Medicaid recipients a state has, the more money it can siphon from Washington. As for Obamacare, there are economic incentives to ignore, and even promote, fraud. Paragon writes that there are 'powerful incentives for individuals, brokers, and insurers to misestimate applicant income to qualify for larger subsidies. Insurers benefit from larger enrollment and government subsidies, and brokers benefit from higher commissions.' States have little incentive to check Obamacare fraud, since it costs them nothing. Speaking of which, there are political incentives to ignore health care fraud. Many Democratic-led blue states brag about their larger enrollment numbers in Medicaid and Obamacare, and therefore lower uninsured rates. It gives Democrats virtue-signaling opportunities to claim they are doing a better job providing health coverage. And their friendly media megaphone reinforces the virtue-signaling by their critical reporting on states, like Texas, with higher uninsured rates. Republicans' 'One Big Beautiful Bill' includes changes to improve Medicaid and ObamaCare program integrity and reduce fraud. But the fight isn't over, because a large portion of the country benefits both economically and politically from health care fraud. Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of 'On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.'
