Annual report - South Carolina, Department of Social Services.

Report year ends June 30.

Review of Managing the Fraud Risk in the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP), Administered by the Department of Social Services

This review was initiated based upon allegations from multiple sources of possible fraud in the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP) administered by the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), which was implemented in response to the 10/3/2015 statewide flooding from Hurricane Joaquin. This review’s scope and objectives were: Assess SCDSS’s D-SNAP implementation for compliance with federal guidelines, with emphasis on fraud preventative controls; Assess the SCDSS’s post-disaster review and audit methodology for compliance with federal guidelines, with emphasis on understanding the fraud risks and resolution strategies; and Identify residual risk/suspected fraud not addressed through the SCDSS review and available opportunities to address.

AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES REPORT ON CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF NURSING CARE SERVICES WITH STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

The Medicaid Audits Section of the South Carolina Office of the State Auditor performs audits and reviews of cost reports filed by institutional providers of Medicaid services. These cost reports are used by the Health and Human Services Finance Commission to establish amounts to be paid to these providers for services provided to qualified Medicaid recipients. This report deals with A. Sam Karesh Long Term Care Nursing Facility in North Augusta, S.C.

Review of Preventative Controls for Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Department of Social Services

This review of preventative controls for fraud, waste, and abuse in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), administered by the Department of Social Services, was self-initiated by the State Inspector General as part of a broader statewide review of preventative fraud, waste, and abuse management controls of major benefit programs in State agencies. This review’s scope and objectives were: Assess SNAP’s preventative management controls for fraud, waste, and abuse; Identify SNAP preventative management control best practices; and Identify opportunities to improve SNAP management controls to cost/effectively mitigate risks of fraud, waste, and abuse.

Review of Program Integrity Operations At Six Managed Care Organizations Delivering Medicaid Services under a Contract with the South Carolina Department of Health & Human Services

The State contracted with six managed care organizations to deliver Medicaid managed care at an annual cost of $2.7 billion, representing 10% of the State’s annual budget, to 750,000 Medicaid beneficiaries in South Carolina. This review’s scope and objectives were: Test the six MCOs’ compliance and effective execution of the SCDHHS’s managed care contract “Section 11 - Program Integrity” focusing on the operational components of pre-payment review and post-payment review. Identify opportunities to improve SCDHHS’s biennial managed care contract, contract monitoring, and MCO compliance and effective execution of the contract.

Review of Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Allegations Involving SC Mentor, a Private Provider for the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs

This review was requested by the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs for an independent review of allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation at SC Mentor, a private provider of residential services for DDSN consumers. An analysis of incidents did not indicate systemic abuse towards consumers inasmuch as the majority of the ANE reporting system contained allegations more akin to staff/facility performance issues and the vast majority of all allegations were unsustained by independent investigations. In the future, DDSN should expand the level of detail in its ANE reporting, which currently only reports total allegations and sustained criminal incidents.

Department of Social Services Options Paper : Options for Replacement Arrangements Following the Abolition of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission : Response

Submission in response to government options paper regarding arrangements for regulation of charities following abolition of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.

Submission to KPMG review of the Federal Government Initiative to “analyse dementia program and services funded by the Department of Social Services"

The comments I make are based on my nearly twenty years involvement in the dementia cause at both a national and international level. In preparation, I read two papers namely the Ministerial Dementia Forum – Option Paper produced by KPMG Management Consultants (2014) and Analysis of Dementia Programmes and Services Funded by the Department of Social Services: Conversation Starter prepared by KPMG as a preparation document for those attending a workshop in Brisbane on April 22nd 2015. Dementia is a complex “syndrome” and as is often said, “when you meet one person with dementia, you have met one” meaning that no two persons with dementia are the same. Even in dementia care, Australia is a “lucky country” and there is much to be said for the quality and diversity of dementia care available for people living with dementia. Despite this, I agree with the many views expressed in the material I read that there is scope for improvement, especially in the way that services are coordinated. In saying that, I do not purport to have all the solutions nor claim to have the knowledge required to comment on all the programs covered by this review. If I appear to be a “biased” advocate for Alzheimer’s Australia across the States and Territories, it is because I have seen constant evidence of ordinary people doing extraordinary things with inadequate resources. Dementia care is not cheap and if those funding dementia services are primarily only interested in economic outcomes and benefits, the real purpose of this consultation will be defeated. In addition, nowhere in the material I have read is there any recognition that in many instances program funding is a complex mix of government (at all levels) and private funding. This makes reviewing those programs more complex and less able to be coordinated at a Departmental level. It goes without saying therefore that the Federal Government is not” the only player in this game”. Of all those participating in this review, Alzheimer’s Australia is best placed to comment on programs as it is more connected to people living with dementia and has probably the best record of consulting with them. It would appear however that their role has been reduced to that of a “bit player”. Without wanting to be critical, the Forum Report which deals with the comments made at a gathering of 70 individuals and organisations, only three (3) or 4.28% were actual carers of people living with dementia. Even if it is argued that a number of organisations present represented consumers, the percentage goes up only marginally to 8.57% which is hardly an endorsement of the forum being “consumer driven”. The predominance of those present were service providers, each with their own agenda and each seeking advantage for their “business”. The final point I want to make before commenting on more specific, program related issues, is that many programs being reviewed have a much longer history than is reflected in the material I have read. Their growth and development was pioneered by Alzheimer’s Australia organisations across the country often with no government funding. Attempts to bring about better coordination of programs were often at the behest of Alzheimer’s Australia but in the main were ignored. The opportunity to now put this right is long overdue.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH ANNUAL REPORT 1979-80

Each year the South Carolina State Hospital Commission submits an annual report to the General Assembly that contains the agency's mission, objectives to accomplish the mission, and performance measures that show the degree to which objectives are being met.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH ANNUAL REPORT 1980-81

Each year the South Carolina State Hospital Commission submits an annual report to the General Assembly that contains the agency's mission, objectives to accomplish the mission, and performance measures that show the degree to which objectives are being met.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH ANNUAL REPORT 1981-82

Each year the South Carolina State Hospital Commission submits an annual report to the General Assembly that contains the agency's mission, objectives to accomplish the mission, and performance measures that show the degree to which objectives are being met.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH ANNUAL REPORT 1982-83

Each year the South Carolina State Hospital Commission submits an annual report to the General Assembly that contains the agency's mission, objectives to accomplish the mission, and performance measures that show the degree to which objectives are being met.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH ANNUAL REPORT 1971-72

Each year the South Carolina State Hospital Commission submits an annual report to the General Assembly that contains the agency's mission, objectives to accomplish the mission, and performance measures that show the degree to which objectives are being met.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH ANNUAL REPORT 1972-73

Each year the South Carolina State Hospital Commission submits an annual report to the General Assembly that contains the agency's mission, objectives to accomplish the mission, and performance measures that show the degree to which objectives are being met.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH ANNUAL REPORT 1973-74

Each year the South Carolina State Hospital Commission submits an annual report to the General Assembly that contains the agency's mission, objectives to accomplish the mission, and performance measures that show the degree to which objectives are being met.