Quality Control Review of Berenson & Company LLP and the Defense Contract Audit Agency Riverside Research Institute Fiscal Year Ended November 30, 1996

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara E. Smolenyak ◽  
Donald D. Steele ◽  
Sunil R. Kadam ◽  
Janet C. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Defense Contract ◽  
Research Institute

Hiring Auditors with a Part II Quality Control Report: An Opportunity for Increased Earnings Management or Lower Audit Fees?

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-93
Author(s):  
Jared Eutsler ◽  
D. Kip Holderness ◽  
Megan M. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Company ◽  
General Demand ◽  
Systemic Quality

ABSTRACT The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (PCAOB) Part II inspection reports, which disclose systemic quality control issues that auditors fail to remediate, signal poor audit quality for triennially inspected audit firms. Auditors that receive a Part II inspection report typically experience a decrease in clients, which demonstrates a general demand for audit quality. However, some companies hire auditors that receive Part II inspection reports. We examine potential reasons for hiring these audit firms. We find that relative to companies that switch to auditors without Part II reports, companies that switch to auditors with Part II reports have higher discretionary accruals in the first fiscal year after the switch, which indicates lower audit quality and a heightened risk for future fraud. We find no difference in audit fees. Our results suggest that PCAOB Part II inspection reports may signal low-quality auditors to companies that desire low-quality audits. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

Abstract W P284: Stroke CORE Measure Data Submission to CMS: Process Improvement Initiative

Stroke ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Renee Richetts ◽  
Katherine Clarkson-Afshar ◽  
Lindsay Olson-Mack ◽  
Lynn Berger ◽  
Christopher Bajkiewicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Process Improvement ◽  
Patient Discharge ◽  
Labor Cost ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Measure Data ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Quality Control Tool ◽  
Core Measure ◽  
Improvement Programs

Background: As of January 2013, CMS required hospitals to submit Stroke CORE Measure data on all discharged patients in order to be eligible for full reimbursement in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2014. Failure to do so results in a payment reduction to hospitals. Furthermore, rapid-change-cycle and continuous quality improvement programs suggest that a rapid communication feedback approach can improve compliance with evidence-based practice. To meet impending data-reporting and fiscal challenges, the 5 campus hospital organization implemented strategies in Aug-Dec 2012 to: reduce labor costs related to stroke core measure reporting without increasing risk to full CMS reimbursement; and decrease the FY 2012 lag time between patient discharge, and communication of core measure compliance to clinicians. The purpose of this study was to determine if: (1) savings in labor dollars were achieved; (2) risk of CMS payment reduction did not increase; and (3) reduction in time from discharge to internal reporting was achieved. Methods: Minutes/case abstraction of CORE Measures were directly measured for all inpatient stroke cases discharged in October, 2012/60 minutes. Number of hours was multiplied by the cost of labor/hour to establish a labor cost/case baseline. Time/case was reassessed in April, 2013. Successful submission of data to CMS Jan-March, 2013 was determiner of risk. Retrospective review of May -July, 2012 was used to establish a comparative baseline (equal to 65 days). Days from discharge until data resulted to clinician were audited from January-March, 2013 using quality control tool. Goal was set at 21 days or less. Results: In the time period analyzed, the labor cost related to time spent abstracting each case was reduced by 20%. Risk of failure to follow CMS public reporting rules was not increased, and the first quarter (Jan-March 2013) results were submitted/accepted by CMS with no quality control issues. During the time period reviewed, the days from patient discharge to internal reporting of compliance results was reduced from 65 to 21 or less. Conclusion: The process improvement strategies achieved all goals and clinical improvements during the period reviewed. The sustainability of these results is the subject of on-going, quarterly reassessment.

Ouality Control Review of KPMG Peat Marwick LLP and the Defense Contract Audit Agency The Smithsonian Institution Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1996

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara E. Smolenyak ◽  
Donald D. Steele ◽  
Andrew Katsaros ◽  
Sunil R. Kadam ◽  
Nancy C. Cipolla
Keyword(s):  
Smithsonian Institution ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Defense Contract
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document