ComplianceClose-up

When you get disconnected....it's okay to try again

As anyone who has taken NCHM's Mangement and Occupancy Review Specialist (MORS) class can attest, I have consistently stated that owners/managers, Contract Administrators/PBCA's and HUD are partners rather than adversaries because compliance with HUD regulations and guidelines is a shared objective. 

But every once in a while, I learn things that make me question, albeit briefly, whether I need to reconsider that view.

For instance, a property recently wrote me about a resident that was having one of their medical expenses reimbursed by an outside source.  As anyone who has taken and successfully passed our Certified Occupancy Specialist (COS) course knows, only unreimbursed medical expenses are counted as part of the medical expense.  Equally as important, monies received specifically for the payment of medical expenses are not counted as income. 

On the latter point, here's the precise language: "Amounts received by the family that are specifically for, or in reimbursement of, the cost of medical expenses for any family member." (HUD Handbook 4350.3, Rev. 1, Exhibit 5-1(4)Exclusions, page 5-82).

Until recently, I thought this was pretty clear.  But according to one auditor, I was wrong.  This person said the above exclusion refers to "amounts paid by the family...and received by the family -- and since the outside source is not a family member this exclusion is not applicable." 

I beg your pardon? 

Point 1: The family is being reimbursed for a medical expense.  Exhibit 5-1(4) excludes income received as a reimbursement of a medical expense.

Point 2: The reimbursement of the medical expense was for a family member in the unit.

I do not feel, therefore, that the reimbursement should be counted as income, nor should it be included as a medical expense/allowance. If the auditor's logic is followed, then we would count as income reimbursements from Blue Cross/Blue Shield for medical expenses since Blue Cross/Blue Shield "...isn't a family member."

As I mentioned in my "Humble Pie" posting last month, there's no shame in being wrong.  And in this case, I have learned a lesson: I am going to think twice about criticizing HUD's occasional reluctance to put something in writing. 

Criminal Background Checks, Tenant Files (and something you may have missed)

I am getting a lot of questions about the retention of criminal records in tenant files, so I thought I would make this first post-holiday posting about that because....well....I can.  This is one of those topics where a clarification by HUD is not only timely, but invaluable.

HUD Handbook 4350.3, Rev. 1, Paragraph 8-14C(13) states that, "All criminal records received are to be maintained confidentially, not misused or improperly disseminated; and destroyed upon completion of the originally intended use."  The paragraph goes on to state that a notation will be placed in the file noting that any criminal record was reviewed and was destroyed for reasons of confidentiality.

(As a side comment, it interested me that this paragraph was located in the handbook chapter dealing with terminations of tenancy, and that it was at variance with the provisions in Chapter 5 that state third party verifications received by mail, fax, etc. should be retained in the tenant file).

However, on October 17, 2007 HUD issued a clarification to this paragraph through their RHIIP Listserve.  Appearing as #75, HUD clarifies that criminal record information is to be retained in the file unless a Public Housing Authority (PHA) is performing the criminal background checks -- in which case they should be destroyed following the proper notations as described in Paragraph 8-14C13.  The same post also clarifies the treatment of EIV records. 

Here's the URL: http://170.97.67.13/offices/hsg/mfh/rhiip/rhiiplistservarchive12.pdf

Happy reading!

Hope you all enjoyed the long weekend. 

RHIIP Guide and Management and Occupancy Reviews

During the past several weeks, I have been hearing from housing management professionals whose HUD Form 9834 (Management and Occupancy Reviews) has cited the RHIIP Guidebook in connection with "findings" on the review.  However, the Performance Based Contract Administrators (PBCA's) I have spoken with on this issue have stated they limit their findings to HUD Handbooks 4350.1 and 4350.3 as well as Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations -- and they would not cite the RHIIP Guidebook.

I am interested in knowing whether the use of the RHIIP Guidebook in connection with MORs is a widespread practice.  Please feel free to share your views on this, as well as on Management and Occupancy Reviews in general.

Did I hear that right???

Over the course of almost two decades on the road, there are bound to be times when a seminar participant says something to me, and my normal response would be to shake my head -- or roll my eyes as if they were dice in Las Vegas.  But, as recent attendees at seminars I've trained are aware, I am suffering from a neck and back injury, so vigorous shaking of my head is something my doctor has advised me to avoid whenever possible.  (As an aside, nodding my head "yes" hurts much less than shaking my head "no," a fact of which my wife and kids have taken full advantage).

There are two recent examples that are just too good for me to keep to myself.  Plus, they were openly mentioned in seminars so I am not violating any confidentiality.

1.  An MOR for a property contained a finding that the Social Security card issued in the name of a minor child was not signed. 

2. Now that the race/ethnicity data certification has been officially made optional by Change 2, some managers have been told to "look at the person and guess" their race/ethnicity if they've declined to complete the race/ethnicity data certification.

Questioning third-party verifications

This is in response to the following anonymous comment recently posted on the Blog:

"Do you think it is reasonable to question a medical expense amount from a third party. If so when do you decide when and how often you should further investigate. It is not in the handbook, should it even be a finding on a MOR?"

Yes, I do think it is reasonable to question a medical expense amount from a third party under certain circumstances. 

For instance, if the third party verification source isn't a "licensed medical practitioner" as required by HUD, it would be appropriate to question the expense amount.  Or, if we're talking about a non-prescription medication and the third party verification either: (a) Is not from a licensed medical practitioner and/or (b) Fails to state the OTC medication is needed for an existing condition (HUD Handbook 4350.3, Rev. 1, Exhibit 5-3) it is appropriate to question the third party.

If the question is based on these type of issues, which are published in HUD guidelines, it is appropriate.  If the question is based on the subjective "feelings or beliefs" of the person doing the file audit/review and they cannot cite any evidentiary or regulatory/guideline support for these "feelings or beliefs," the propriety of the question is much less clear.

To challenge or not to challenge; that is the question

By now, most housing management professionals in our industry have experienced at least one Management and Occupancy Review (MOR).  As I travel across the country conducting NCHM seminars or consulting, one of the things I hear most often concerns issues that were listed as “findings” on a property’s MOR.

When appropriate, I inquire whether a finding was challenged and, often, the response is “no.”  When I follow up and ask why not, I get a variation on a response that comes down to this: A decision was made not to challenge and risk angering the regulatory agency, since they’re responsible for compliance monitoring and will be doing another MOR next year.

Before continuing with this posting, I want to make clear that I am not attacking or criticizing regulatory agencies, including HUD, traditional Contract Administrators (CA’s) or Performance Based Contract Administrators (PBCA’s).  Now that I have made that point clear, I want to go on record here as saying that avoiding necessary challenges out of fear for what might happen during next year’s MOR is not in the best interests of anyone involved in the process; it’s bad for management, bad for HUD, and bad for the CA/PBCA.