Berkshire District Health Board Scandal

An “audit failure” is a situation in which a professional auditor fails to detect a material error in the financial statements of the company they are auditing. The audit failure in the situation of Rita Crundwell the failure was exacerbated by the fact that the auditors continually signed off on the misstated statements for years. Crundwell is responsible for many of the deficiencies mentioned, such as the missing funds and the incorrect invoices. However, she is not the sole person responsible for this fraud. The lack of internal control is to blame, and this cannot be placed on a single person. The government should have separated duties and used

Appendix A.2 also lists several factors that could provide opportunities for management/employees to commit fraud. One factor that could lead to fraud is if, “There is ineffective monitoring of management as a result of: domination of management by a single person or small group without compensating controls.” The auditors should have taken notice of the lack of controls and segregation of duties with respect to Phar-Mor’s

With different industry definitions and viewpoints, fraud can be a tough issue for audit committee members to grasp for oversight purposes. The legal obligations of audit committee members have intensified because their standard duty of care and loyalty to the entity has increased in light of management fraud activities.

Internal and outside auditors have a heavy role and responsibility in performing audits, preventing major accounting errors, and following (GAAP) guidelines. Several duties comprise the role of internal and outside auditor to follow specific protocol and ensure ethical standards are priority. The National Health Care Billing Audit Guidelines are relevant to address as well as why audit failures happen. Finally, how internal vary from external audit and why audits are overall important to health care organizations. It’s vital for health care organizations to maintain all necessary standards to conduct proper audits and uphold ethical standards for the financial health of the organization.

Legitimacy in accounting practices is ensured by the check and balance of having independent auditors from registered public accountant firms reviewing financial practices. The report features eleven sections and these sections pertain to accounting overview, independence of auditors to reduce interest conflicts, corporate responsibility, financial disclosures, tax returns, criminal fraud and various elements of white collar criminal activity (107th Congress

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was established as a result of corporate scandals that led to the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This paper will explore the circumstances that led to the creation of the PCAOB. I will then go on to discuss the roles and responsibilities of the PCAOB, and suggestions for improvement of the PCAOB auditing process.

The services provided by auditors can have a far-reaching influence. For many years, investors have relied on audited financial statements to make sound investment decisions. Thus, auditors are obliged to protect the interests of investors, taking on the role of gatekeepers (Kane, 2004). In recent years, countries around the world have witnessed examples of corporate fraud. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed by the US Congress in the wake of such scandals, is considered the most influential act with the greatest impact on auditing professionals. This is an example of a government’s attempt to halt corporate fraud by improving corporate governance and strengthening the function of auditing, as a means to restore trust. However, quality and integrity

For this assignment, I spent time volunteering at Mercy Downtown, helping at the main information desk. While I was there, I assisted visitors in finding patients by looking up their room number, directed patients and visitors to the correct area of the hospital, and delivered flowers to rooms that had been dropped off. A paid employee also accompanied me while there, as volunteers are not allowed to actually look up patient information via the online portal, but I could call a different help desks within the hospital to ask other paid employees to look patients up for me if needed. The experience made me realize that there are so many little unthought of components to making a hospital as big as Mercy be efficient for everyone. The information

The most significant fraud of state services in the short history of NZ was the scandal of the Otago District Health Board (ODHB) which was uncovered in 20083. The Chief Information Technology Officer (CIO) at the time was the 47-year-old Michael Swann, whom was instrumental to this case of fraud. Swann was able to perpetrate a multimillion-dollar fraud with the help of his friend Kerry Harford by generating illegitimate and fallacious computer, software and insurance invoices. ODBH was defrauded of almost $17 million NZD over 6 years3. A repercussion of this scandal as had detrimental implications on the stakeholders of ODHB and we will look into that in this report. We will also outline the auditor’s role and responsibilities in this report, and if they are liable for any of the damages suffered by plaintiffs. We will conclude with briefly covering the outcome of the fraud case and the current situations are for those involved.

Currently, firms that perform audits under the Companies Act 1993 and the Securities Act 1978 are not permitted to be a ‘body corporate’. Sole auditors enforce the partnership model which results in a number of limitations that are placed on auditors. The Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill includes proposals to change this rule and allow members of accredited professional bodies to perform statutory audits. The Reform Bill is also proposing other methods for auditors to limit liability.

The main issue in this case is that in the standard audit reports that go with the financial statements, “the auditor’s responsibility for detecting fraud is not discussed (Mancino, 1997)”. This is occurring because “auditors do not examine every transaction that happens or event and that would mean there is no guarantee that all material misstatements, whether caused by error or fraud could be detected (Mancino, 1997)”. There should be a spot on the audit report that states the auditor’s roles and their limitation into finding fraud. “There also seems to be some issues between the rules of the PCAOB has and the language that auditors use in their reports do not match (Holl, 2005)”. They should add a phrase to their audit reports that says it was either caused by error or fraud and to take accountability of knowing fraud had happen since it is the auditor’s job to show that the financial statements are free of material misstatements. Another reason this is occurring is the fact it is pretty much a pass or fail type of report it is not very detailed.

In the beginning, this report briefly describes the nature of auditing issues including the independence of auditor – Arthur Anderson and its compliance of auditing standards about the collapse of HIH insurance from five articles. Secondly, it discusses and highlights some ethical issues, stakeholders including the relationships between HIH directors and its auditing team, and outlines their financial and non-financial problems around HIH’s stakeholders. This report also analyze HIH’s auditing issues applying on the agency theory and review common benefits with the role of an auditing firm – Arthur Anderson in HIH’S collapse.

Since 1983 the New Zealand public health sector has undergone four structural transformations. With each change there was a new set of organisations to fund and deliver health services: 1983-1993 Area Health Boards (AHBs); 1993-1997 Regional Health Authorities (RHAs) and Crown Health Enterprises (CHEs); 1998-2001 Health Funding Authority (HFA) and Hospital and Health Services (HHSs); and 2001 District Health Boards (DHBs). These changes were designed to improve health outcomes, increase accountability and efficiency and to reduce escalating health expenditure. In 2001, 21 District Health Boards were established through the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. DHBs are Crown entities that are responsible to the Minister of Health and funded via a population-based formula by the Ministry of Health. DHBs are required to focus on reducing inequalities among their populations, prioritising health services within budget and providing access to disability support, mental health services and primary health care. DHBs are governed by an 11 member committee; seven locally elected, and up to four ministerial appointees, including the Chair. Each Board must have at least two Maori members (they are appointed if not elected). Under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000, DHBs are required to develop partnerships with Maori by developing formal iwi relationships in their regions. Public health services are split between the 12 Ministry of Health funded (but

In 1983, Health Board Act was passed, which reconstructed 27 hospital boards into 14 Area Health Boards (AHB) funded by a population-based formula. In 2000, Health and Disability Act 2000 introduced under which District Health Boards(DHB) were created. There are 20 DHBs in New Zealand and each DHB is monitored by a board of up to 11 members. It promoting the integration of health services, especially primary and secondary care services. Since 2002, PHO (Primary Health Organisation), currently 31, has been established to coordinate PHC Services for an enrolled population.

This report investigates the biggest fraud case committed by a state employee against a Government institution in New Zealand (Otago Daily Times, 2008), Otago District Health Board, which went