An audit reveals that New York City health officials routinely overpaid a contractor to provide COVID-19 tests and vaccinations, paying as much as $14,050 for a single COVID-19 shot.
Brad Lander, the city comptroller of New York City, discovered that officials allowed Executive Medical Services, a contractor given a contract early in the COVID-19 pandemic, to set its own staffing levels, resulting in out-of-control costs.
Due to the high costs and inefficient procedures, only one vaccination was given for every two billed hours, according to an analysis of the invoices.
“Emergency contracting allows the City to stand up vital services in times of crisis, but demands heightened vigilance to safeguard the fiscal interests of the City. Our audit reveals significant weaknesses in the control mechanisms that impact past, present, and potentially future emergencies. By addressing these challenges head-on, agencies can better spend New York City’s taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently, even in crises,” Lander, a Democrat, said in a statement.
A request for comment was not answered by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Health Services, which was responsible for paying Executive Medical Services.
Affiliated Physicians, also known as Executive Medical Services, did not respond to a query.
Contract
Executive Medical Services’ initial payment from the agency was up to $500,000. The agency paid the contractor about $390 million after six contract amendments that extended it through the end of 2022.
Executive Medical Services received payment under the contract to build permanent and transient, or popup, sites for COVID-19 testing or vaccination. 267 of the 302 sites were transient.
Lander’s office looked into the Department of Health to determine whether it had ensured that payments made to the contractor were lawful, that staffing levels were reasonably in line with demand, and that sites were established fairly in accordance with the contract’s terms.
While auditors discovered that COVID-19-affected communities had sites established as needed and that most invoices were accompanied by supporting documentation, they also found worrying information regarding staffing levels and costs.
The department “did not adequately control or monitor staffing levels,” Lander’s office said.
According to the agreement, Executive Medical Services would receive $150 per hour across all locations, in addition to $100 for each test and $25 for each shot that were given. The department was in charge of overseeing contractor performance, but the plan lacked criteria for determining whether sites had enough staff in relation to demand, according to auditors. That left the department with “limited means of effectively controlling expenditures or minimizing waste.”
Auditors discovered that one test was administered every 1.6 staff hours and one vaccination every 2 staff hours after examining a sample of 49 invoices and supporting documentation.
Auditors also discovered soaring expenses, such as payments of up to $14,050 for each vaccination given and up to $2,040 for each test performed.
Across various sites, prices varied greatly. The least amount paid per shot given was $70, and the least amount paid for each test was $128.
The organization informed auditors that it assisted in determining staffing levels in accordance with recommendations from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and that some employees, such as managers and observers, did not directly administer tests or vaccinations. Officials said staffing numbers were “pre- determined based on the layout of a particular venue, number of vaccine products offered and anticipated demand.”
“The lives of New Yorkers were saved because of the City’s efforts to provide testing and vaccination services. It is not possible to place a monetary value on a life,” officials added.
Other Failings
The audit also revealed that beginning in December 2020, authorities started expecting the contractor to deliver daily summary reports.
The reports detailed both the work done and the number of employees at each location.
Both a representative from the Department of Health and Executive Medical Services were supposed to sign the reports.
Nevertheless, a sample review revealed that 25% of the reports were not signed by the latter.
The lack of approval by the department means the agency “did not have independent confirmation” of data from some sites before paying the contractor, auditors said.
The department also failed to finish a vendor performance evaluation for the contract by the deadline established by the city’s Procurement Policy Board.
Recommendations
The department should establish a standard procedure for determining staffing levels for contracts, analyze contracts on a regular basis to ensure they are being met effectively, and ensure that evaluations are completed as needed, according to the auditors’ recommendations.
The recommendations were accepted by the department.
On two other recommendations, the department deviated from the comptroller’s position.
Today, America First Legal (AFL) has formally requested that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) initiate investigations into the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and Dr. Anthony Fauci for allegedly violating federal laws pertaining to the use of personal emails for official government business. This move comes amidst growing concerns about transparency and accountability within federal agencies.
Background and Allegations
AFL’s request centers around the alleged use of personal email addresses by Dr. Fauci and Dr. David Morens, Fauci’s senior advisor, to conduct official NIAID business. According to AFL, these actions potentially violate the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which mandate the preservation and disclosure of government records.
In May, AFL demanded an extensive investigation into Dr. Morens, accusing him of attempting to evade FOIA requests by using a personal email account for official communications. The allegations suggest that this practice might have included other senior NIAID officials, potentially implicating Dr. Fauci in a broader scheme to circumvent federal transparency laws.
Investigative Authorities and Jurisdiction
The OSC has the authority to investigate the arbitrary and capricious withholding of information by NIAID, while the HHS OIG is tasked with probing violations of the Federal Records Act by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The HHS OIG is also required to report evidence of such violations to the Attorney General promptly. AFL asserts that these alleged violations warrant immediate and thorough investigation to uphold the principles of government accountability.
Statement from America First Legal
Dan Epstein, Vice President of America First Legal, emphasized the importance of these investigations in a statement:
“AFL’s requests supplement the Oversight Committee’s work and help determine whether Dr. Fauci evaded government transparency and records preservation requirements. The numerous examples of FOIA and records law violations by the current administration would be merely regrettable but for the woeful irony of lawfare against the former President for alleged records violations. Accountability and fairness are therefore key,” Epstein stated.
Implications and Next Steps
The demand for investigations into Dr. Fauci and NIAID raises critical questions about adherence to federal transparency and record-keeping laws within government agencies. If proven, these allegations could have significant implications for the integrity of federal processes and the enforcement of laws designed to ensure public access to government information.
AFL’s actions underscore the ongoing scrutiny of federal officials and the importance of maintaining rigorous standards of transparency and accountability. As the OIG and OSC consider AFL’s requests, the outcomes of these potential investigations could set important precedents for how federal records and information are managed in the future.
In an era where government transparency is paramount, the resolution of these allegations will be closely watched by both proponents and critics of current federal practices. Dr. Fauci, a prominent figure throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, now faces intensified scrutiny as these investigations unfold.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, a key adviser to two presidential administrations during the COVID-19 pandemic, has reversed his stance on school closures, admitting in a recent interview that keeping schools closed for more than a year was a “mistake.” This acknowledgment comes as a significant shift from his earlier position, where he defended the extended closures despite increasing criticism.
In a Tuesday interview with “CBS Mornings” co-host Tony Dokoupil, Fauci reflected on the impact of the prolonged school closures. “Keeping it for a year was not a good idea,” the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) conceded while promoting his new memoir, “On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service.”
When asked directly by Dokoupil if the prolonged closure was a mistake and something to avoid in the future, Fauci responded, “Absolutely, yeah.”
Throughout the pandemic, Fauci had maintained that the initial decision to close schools was necessary to control the spread of the virus. In sworn congressional testimony and various media appearances, he supported the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines that led to school closures, arguing they were based on the broader community’s infection rates.
During the summer of 2020, Fauci clashed with former President Donald Trump over reopening schools. Trump criticized the CDC’s stringent guidelines, calling them impractical, while Fauci emphasized the importance of controlling the virus’s spread before safely reopening schools.
By September 2020, some schools that reopened reported less than 1% of COVID-19 cases, according to Brown University’s National COVID-19 School Response Data Dashboard. A CDC study in January 2021 found “little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission,” which further fueled the debate on the necessity of prolonged school closures.
Despite this emerging data, many schools remained closed due to pressure from powerful teachers’ unions and ongoing concerns about community transmission rates. Fauci, at the time, continued to stress caution and the importance of low transmission rates before resuming in-person learning.
The prolonged closures had significant impacts on students’ education and well-being. In September 2022, the US Department of Education released statistics showing reading scores among nine-year-olds had plummeted to their lowest point in 30 years, while math scores fell for the first time ever in a half-century of tracking.
In an October 2022 interview with ABC News, Fauci avoided labeling the extended closures as a “mistake,” cautioning against taking his comments out of context. However, he acknowledged the “deleterious collateral consequences” of such measures.
In his recent CBS interview, Fauci maintained that the initial closures were correct but reiterated that keeping them for a prolonged period was not advisable. “I kept on saying, ‘Close the bars, open the schools, open the schools as quickly and as safely as you possibly can,’” Fauci recalled. He emphasized the importance of acting swiftly and safely to reopen schools to minimize harm to students.
A spokesperson for the House COVID subcommittee majority echoed this sentiment, stating, “The ‘science’ promoted by teachers’ unions and public health officials never justified prolonged school closures. Safely returning our children to school as soon as possible should have been the top priority.”
Dr. Fauci’s recent acknowledgment marks a significant shift in the narrative surrounding school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the nation reflects on the lessons learned, it is crucial to ensure that future public health responses balance safety with the well-being and educational needs of students.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the face of America’s fight against COVID-19, has recently expressed his frustration over what he perceives as a lack of appreciation for his efforts during the pandemic.
Fauci, who was formerly the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), touted efforts to make COVID-19 vaccine resisters’ lives more challenging during a 2020 interview, including banning unvaccinated people from attending college and getting jobs at large corporation. The former NIAID director said on “Morning Joe” that it is really “frustrating” for him to receive backlash as he believes he was doing his best to handle the pandemic as the science changed.
“It is quite frustrating, Joe,” Fauci told host Joe Scarborough. “People really don’t appreciate. I don’t blame them for that, but they don’t appreciate that we were dealing with a moving target. When we were saying things in the beginning, wear a mask or not, how the virus is spread. I mean, originally it was felt, understandably, but incorrectly, by the CDC that it spread by the same way that flu is spread … mostly by droplets, when in fact most of the transmission is not only by droplets but by aerosol, but also 50-60% of the people who transmit it have no symptoms at all.”
“We didn’t know that at the beginning. It was a changing, moving target. Was it frustrating? It was terribly frustrating because people like to take things out of context and do a gotcha. That’s part of the reporting process. and I accept that. That’s the world we live in. But it certainly is frustrating,” Fauci concluded, with Scarborough telling him how much he appreciates the former NIAID director.
The pandemic period was one of unprecedented division and political tension in the United States. Public opinion on Fauci’s performance has been starkly polarized. Supporters laud him as a dedicated scientist who tirelessly worked to save lives amid a rapidly evolving crisis. They argue that his guidance on masking, social distancing, and vaccinations was rooted in the best available science and aimed at mitigating the virus’s spread.
On the other hand, critics accuse Fauci of overreach and inconsistency. They point to changing guidelines and statements that, in their view, undermined public trust. Some have gone so far as to suggest that Fauci’s actions were politically motivated or that he failed to adequately communicate the uncertainties inherent in dealing with a novel virus.
A Polarizing Figure
The criticism Fauci faces is not without precedent. Public health officials often find themselves in difficult positions, especially during crises. However, the intensity of the backlash against Fauci has been particularly severe. He has received threats, faced personal attacks, and become a symbol of broader societal debates over science, governance, and personal freedom.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login