oversight

Audit of Information Systems General and Application Controls at Capital District Physicians' Health Plan

Published by the Office of Personnel Management, Office of Inspector General on 2016-08-12.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

               U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
                     MANAGEMENT
           OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
                    OFFICE OF AUDITS




                Final Audit Report
         AUDIT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS GENERAL
             AND APPLICATION CONTROLS AT
        CAPITAL DISTRICT PHYSICIANS’ HEALTH PLAN
                                            Report Number 1C-SG-00-16-007
                                                    August 12, 2016




                                                             -- CAUTION --
This audit report has been distributed to Federal officials who are responsible for the administration of the audited program. This audit report may
contain proprietary data which is protected by Federal law (18 U.S.C. 1905). Therefore, while this audit report is available under the Freedom of
Information Act and made available to the public on the OIG webpage (http://www.opm.gov/our-inspector-general), caution needs to be exercised before
releasing the report to the general public as it may contain proprietary information that was redacted from the publicly distributed copy.
                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                        Audit of Information Systems General and Application Controls at
                                     Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan 

Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007                                                                                    August 12, 2016

                                             What Did We Find?
 Background                                  Our audit of the IT security controls of CDPHP determined that:
 Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan    	   CDPHP has established an adequate security management program.
 (CDPHP) contracts with the U.S.             	   CDPHP has implemented a variety of physical and logical access
 Office of Personnel Management as                controls. However, we noted several areas of concern related to
 part of the Federal Employees Health             CDPHP’s access controls:
 Benefits Program (FEHBP).                        o	 The management of physical access badges could be improved.
                                                  o	 Physical controls surrounding the data center could be improved.
 Why Did We Conduct the Audit?                    o	                   permissions are not audited regularly.
 The objectives of this audit were to             o	 The password policy does not address a minimum password age.
 evaluate controls over the                       o	 Privileged user system access does not require
 confidentiality, integrity, and
 availability of FEHBP data processed        	   CDPHP has implemented an incident response and network security
 and maintained in CDPHP’s information            program. However, we noted several areas of concern related to
                                                  CDPHP’s network security controls:
 technology (IT) environment.
                                                  o	 CDPHP performs routine vulnerability scans. However, not all
                                                      servers in the environment have been subject to scanning.
 What Did We Audit?
                                                  o	 Our test work indicated that software patches are not always
 The scope of this audit centered on the              implemented in a timely manner.
 information systems used by CDPHP to             o	 A methodology is not in place to ensure that unsupported or out-of-
 process and store data related to medical            date software is not utilized.
 encounters and insurance claims for         	   CDPHP has developed formal configuration management policies and
 FEHBP members.                                   has approved security configurations for its operating platforms.
                                                  However, the Plan does not routinely audit systems for compliance with
                                                  the approved configurations.
                                             	   CDPHP’s business continuity and disaster recovery plans contain the
                                                  elements suggested by relevant guidance and publications. CDPHP has
                                                  identified and prioritized the systems and resources that are critical to
                                                  business operations, and has developed detailed procedures to recover
                                                  those systems and resources. However, we noted two areas of concern
                                                  related to CDPHP’s contingency planning controls:
                                                  o	 CDPHP has an informal agreement to use an alternate work space,
                                                       but has no contractual guarantee of its availability.
                                                  o The business continuity plan has not been subject to regular testing
                                                 CDPHP has implemented many controls in its claims adjudication
                                                  processes to ensure that FEHBP claims are processed
                                                  accurately. However, we noted one area where physical claims storage
                                                  could be improved.


 ______________________
 Michael R. Esser
 Assistant Inspector General
 for Audits
                                                         i
                 ABBREVIATIONS


the Act   The Federal Employees Health Benefits Act
CDPHP     Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan
CFR       Code of Federal Regulations
FEHBP     Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
FEP       Federal Employee Program
FISCAM    Federal Information Systems Control Audit Manual
GAO       U.S. Government Accountability Office
IT        Information Technology
NIST      National Institute of Standards and Technology
NIST SP   National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Special Publication
OIG       Office of the Inspector General
OMB       U.S. Office of Management and Budget
OPM       U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Plan      Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan




                                  ii
IV. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
          TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                            Page
         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... i

         ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... ii 


  I.     BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................1 


  II.    OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................2

  III.   AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................4
         A. Security Management ..............................................................................................4
         B. Access Controls .......................................................................................................4
         C. Network Security .....................................................................................................8
         D. Configuration Management ...................................................................................12
         E. Contingency Planning............................................................................................13
         F. Application Controls..............................................................................................15

  IV.    MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT ..................................................18

         APPENDIX: The Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan’s April 25, 2016 response
                   to the draft audit report, issued February 25, 2016.

         REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, AND MISMANAGEMENT
IV. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS
            I. BACKGROUND
                       TO THIS REPORT

This final report details the findings, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the audit
of general and application controls over the information systems responsible for processing
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) claims by Capital District Physicians’
Health Plan (CDPHP or Plan).

The audit was conducted pursuant to FEHBP contract CS 2901; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 89; and 5 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 1, Part 890. The audit was performed by the U.S. Office
of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Office of the Inspector General (OIG), as established by the
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended.

The FEHBP was established by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (the Act), enacted on
September 28, 1959. The FEHBP was created to provide health insurance benefits for federal
employees, annuitants, and qualified dependents. The provisions of the Act are implemented by
OPM through regulations codified in Title 5, Chapter 1, Part 890 of the CFR. Health insurance
coverage is made available through contracts with various carriers that provide service benefits,
indemnity benefits, or comprehensive medical services.

All CDPHP personnel that worked with the auditors were helpful and open to ideas and
suggestions. They viewed the audit as an opportunity to examine practices and to make changes
or improvements as necessary. Their positive attitude and helpfulness throughout the audit was
greatly appreciated.

This was our first audit of CDPHP’s information technology (IT) general and application
controls. We discussed the results of our audit with OPM and CDPHP representatives at an exit
conference.




                                                1                   Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
II. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY

 Objectives

 The objectives of this audit were to evaluate controls over the confidentiality, integrity, and 

 availability of FEHBP data processed and maintained in CDPHP’s information technology (IT) 

 environment. We accomplished these objectives by reviewing the following areas:

  Security management; 

  Access controls; 

  Network security; 

  Configuration management; 

  Contingency planning; and 

  Application controls specific to CDPHP’s claims processing systems. 


 Scope and Methodology

 This performance audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government
 auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Accordingly, we
 obtained an understanding of CDPHP’s internal controls through interviews and observations, as
 well as inspection of various documents, including IT and other related organizational policies
 and procedures. This understanding of CDPHP’s internal controls was used in planning the audit
 by determining the extent of compliance testing and other auditing procedures necessary to
 verify that the internal controls were properly designed, placed in operation, and effective.

 The scope of this audit centered on the information systems used by CDPHP to process medical
 insurance claims for FEHBP members, with a primary focus on the claims adjudication process.
 The business processes reviewed are primarily located in CDPHP’s Albany, New York facility.

 The on-site portion of this audit was performed in October and November of 2015. We
 completed additional audit work before and after the on-site visit at our office in Washington,
 D.C. The findings, recommendations, and conclusions outlined in this report are based on the
 status of information system general and application controls in place at CDPHP as of November
 2015.

 In conducting our audit, we relied to varying degrees on computer-generated data provided by
 CDPHP. Due to time constraints, we did not verify the reliability of the data used to complete
 some of our audit steps but we determined that it was adequate to achieve our audit objectives.
 However, when our objective was to assess computer-generated data, we completed audit steps
 necessary to obtain evidence that the data was valid and reliable.


                                                 2                  Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
In conducting this review we: 

 Gathered documentation and conducted interviews; 

 Reviewed CDPHP’s business structure and environment; 

 Performed a risk assessment of CDPHP’s information systems environment and applications, 

    and prepared an audit program based on the assessment and the U.S. Government 

    Accountability Office’s (GAO) Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual 

    (FISCAM); and 

	 Conducted various compliance tests to determine the extent to which established controls and
    procedures were functioning as intended. As appropriate, we used judgmental sampling in
    completing our compliance testing.

Various laws, regulations, and industry standards were used as a guide to evaluating CDPHP’s 

control structure. These criteria include, but are not limited to, the following publications: 

 Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations; 

 U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Appendix III; 

 OMB Memorandum 07-16, Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of 

   Personally Identifiable Information;
 Information Technology Governance Institute’s COBIT: Control Objectives for Information
   and Related Technology;
 GAO’s FISCAM;
 National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Special Publication (NIST SP) 800-12,
   Introduction to Computer Security;
 NIST SP 800-14, Generally Accepted Principles and Practices for Securing Information
   Technology Systems;
 NIST SP 800-30, Revision 1, Guide for Conducting Risk Assessments;
 NIST SP 800-34, Revision 1, Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems;
 NIST SP 800-41, Revision 1, Guidelines on Firewalls and Firewall Policy;
 NIST SP 800-53, Revision 4, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems
   and Organizations; and
 NIST SP 800-61, Revision 2, Computer Security Incident Handling Guide.

Compliance with Laws and Regulations

In conducting the audit, we performed tests to determine whether CDPHP’s practices were
consistent with applicable standards. While generally compliant, with respect to the items tested,
CDPHP was not in complete compliance with all standards as described in the “Audit Findings
and Recommendations” section of this report.




                                                3	                  Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
III. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Security Management

   Security management controls encompass the policies and 

   procedures that are the foundation of an organization’s overall IT 
       CDPHP maintains a
   security program. We examined CDPHP’s ability to develop and               series of thorough IT
   review security policies, manage risk, assign security-related             security policies and
   responsibility, and monitor the effectiveness of various systems-          procedures.
   related controls. We also examined personnel policies related to 

   hiring, training, and terminating employees. 


   We found that CDPHP has implemented a series of formal policies and procedures that comprise 

   its IT security management program. Specifically, we noted that CDPHP:

    Regularly updates and reviews its IT policies; 

    Maintains an adequate risk management methodology that includes regular risk assessments 

        across multiple functional areas; and

    Has procedures to verify that employees are vetted and appropriately trained for their 

        position. 


   Nothing came to our attention to indicate that CDPHP has not implemented adequate controls
   over its security management program.

B. Access Controls

   Access controls are the policies, procedures, and tools used to prevent or detect unauthorized 

   physical or logical access to sensitive resources. We examined the physical access controls at 

   CDPHP’s facilities and data center located in         , New York. We also examined the logical 

   controls protecting sensitive data in CDPHP’s network environment and applications. 


   The access controls observed during this audit include, but are not limited to: 

    Procedures to appropriately grant and adjust physical access to facilities and data centers;

    Procedures to appropriately grant and adjust logical access to applications and software 

      resources; 

    Robust environmental controls within the data centers; and 

    Role-based access provisioning with documented non-compatible roles.


   The following sections document opportunities for improvement related to CDPHP’s physical
   and logical access controls.



                                                    4                     Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
1) Physical Access Badges

   Physical access to CDPHP facilities is controlled through an electronic badge access system.
   Most employees have a unique electronic badge, and the system is designed to log when each
   individual uses their badge to enter the facility. However, we found that CDPHP has
   allocated generic badges to groups of individuals such as vendors, building services, and
   janitorial services. As a result, CDPHP is not able to leverage the system’s logging
   capabilities to determine which specific individuals enter and exit the facility. The use of
   ‘group’ badges also increases the risk that a group member may be granted an inappropriate
   level of access.

   NIST SP 800-53, Revision 4, necessitates that an organization must enforce physical access
   authorization by verifying individual access authorizations before granting access to a facility
   and by maintaining physical access audit logs.

   Recommendation 1

   We recommend that CDPHP assign a unique electronic access badge to every employee and
   vendor authorized to enter its facilities unescorted.

   CDPHP Response

   “COMPLETE – CDPHP agrees all vendors and employees should have unique badges. A
   log was created and implemented on April 18th to track the
                                       of vendors assigned temporary cards for short term
   work. All other vendors have unique assigned badges.”

   OIG Comment

   Evidence was provided in response to the draft audit report that indicates that CDPHP has
   enhanced its procedures for uniquely tracking badge access to its facilities; no further action
   is required.

2) Physical Access to Data Center

   CDPHP’s data center is located within its primary building, and access is controlled by an 

   electronic badge reader. However, we expect data centers of all FEHBP contractors to also 

   have the following additional controls: 

                                                                                        

                                                       ;



                                                5                   Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
   
                                    ; and
                                                  .

   NIST SP 800-53, Revision 4, provides guidance for adequately controlling physical access to
   information systems containing sensitive data. Failure to implement adequate physical
   access controls increases the risk that unauthorized individuals can gain access to
   confidential data.

   Recommendation 2

   We recommend that CDPHP implement
                                  at its data center.

   CDPHP Response

   “CDPHP agrees and                                                                    

                                        in the data center (Target Date (05/30/16).”


   OIG Comment

   Evidence was provided that indicates that CDPHP has implemented
                  and                               , and has                               within
   the data center; no further action is required.

3) Logical Access Review

   CDPHP assigns system access permissions based on the user’s role and job requirements.
   CDPHP policy requires that user access recertification occur at least
                                        users for all systems and applications. For
                     , CDPHP does routinely review privileged user access, but currently does
   not review standard user accounts to verify that the individual is still employed at CDPHP
   and that their level of access is still appropriate.

   NIST SP 800-53, Revision 4, requires the organization to review “privileges assigned to
   [users] to validate the need for such privileges;” and then reassign or remove privileges to
   reflect organizational business needs. Failure to review logical access permissions increases
   the risk that an authenticated individual will have improper authorized access to sensitive
   data and systems.




                                               6                   Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
  Recommendation 3

  We recommend that CDPHP implement a process to routinely audit all
  accounts to verify that each employee’s access remains appropriate.

  CDPHP Response

  “CDPHP is enhancing the                     recertification process to ensure all standard
  account access is appropriate (Target Date 08/31/2016).”

  OIG Comment

  As a part of the audit resolution process, we recommend that CDPHP provide OPM’s
  Healthcare and Insurance Audit Resolution Group with evidence that CDPHP has fully
  implemented this recommendation. This statement applies to all subsequent
  recommendations in this audit report that CDPHP agrees to implement.

4) Password Age

  CDPHP maintains a password policy, however, this policy does not establish a minimum
  password age for users changing their password on a CDPHP information system. A
  minimum password age determines how long users must keep a password before they can
  change it. Our review indicated that CDPHP’s




  NIST SP 800-53, Revision 4, requires that an organization implement a minimum password
  age. Failure to require this could allow users to reset their password multiple times in a short
  period, in effect allowing them to bypass restrictions regarding the reuse old passwords,
  increasing the risk that the password could become compromised.

  Recommendation 4

  We recommend that CDPHP update its password policy to address minimum password age
  and accordingly reconfigure its information systems to ensure compliance with the adjusted
  corporate approved password policy.




                                               7                   Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
        CDPHP Response

        “COMPLETE - CDPHP implemented the recommended password age setting in
              (completed 03/18/2016).”

        OIG Comment

        Evidence was provided in response to the draft audit report that indicates that CDPHP has
        adjusted its information systems to apply an improved standard; no further action is required.

   5)                    Authentication

        All CDPHP information systems can be accessed via
                 . The use of
        would increase the security of all user accounts, but at a minimum should be immediately
        implemented for                                            .

        NIST SP 800-53, Revision 4, necessitates that
                                                                              Failure to require
                                    on privileged accounts increases the risk of unauthorized access to
        sensitive data and the ability to modify system controls.

        Recommendation 5

        We recommend that CDPHP implement
                on its information systems.

        CDPHP Response

        “CDPHP is implementing                                                                 (Target
        Date 7/31/2016).”

C. Network Security

   Network security includes the policies and controls in place to manage and monitor the use and
   security of a computer network and network-accessible resources.

   During our review we noted that CDPHP has implemented the following controls: 

    A documented incident response methodology;
    Both intrusion detection and prevention controls; and



                                                     8                   Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
   Thorough network segregation.

However, we noted several opportunities for improvement related to CDPHP’s network security
controls.

1) Authenticated Vulnerability Scanning

    CDPHP’s documented vulnerability scanning methodology requires vulnerability scans to be
    run against all systems on a          basis. However, we determined that CDPHP does not
    perform authenticated/credentialed scans for                                       . CDPHP
    plans to expand the use of credentialed scans to the entire environment in the future.

    NIST SP 800-53, Revision 4, states that administrative              CDPHP has not
    credentials should be used for automated vulnerability scans        historically conducted
    so that the scanning tools can access all necessary                 authenticated
    information, and therefore run a more thorough vulnerability        vulnerability scanning on
    scan. Failure to perform authenticated scans increases the          all systems in its entire
    risk that vulnerabilities may persist undetected in the             technical environment.
    environment.

    Recommendation 6

    We recommend that CDPHP perform authenticated vulnerability scans on its entire network
    inventory.

    CDPHP Response

    “CDPHP is implementing recommended changes to support
                                (Target Date 07/31/2016).

    In addition,                                       will be extended
                   by the end of October (Target Date 10/31/2016).”

    OIG Comment

    Evidence was provided that indicated that CDPHP has implemented procedures to ensure
    that all vulnerability scans are performed with valid credentials; no further action is required.

2) Patching Vulnerabilities Identified in Scans




                                                  9                   Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
As part of this audit, we independently performed our own automated vulnerability scans on
a sample of CDPHP’s servers. The specific vulnerabilities that we identified will not be
detailed in this report, but are summarized at a high level below. Copies of the full scan
reports were provided directly to CDPHP during the audit.

Our scans detected CDPHP systems that were missing                 system and third party
patches that were older than the grace period allowed by CDPHP’s patching policy. This
included several instances where specific patches were missing on a widespread basis
throughout the network, and also instances of individual servers that were missing a large
number of patches. CDPHP acknowledged previously detecting these missing patches in its
own vulnerability scans, but did not provide a justification as to why the patches are missing.
CDPHP also had no documentation indicating that it had formally acknowledged and
accepted the risk of the missing patches.

FISCAM states that “Software should be scanned and updated frequently to guard against
known vulnerabilities.” NIST SP 800-53, Revision 4, requires “the organization …
Identifies, reports, and correct information system flaws . . . [and] Installs security-relevant
software and firmware updates” promptly.

The vulnerabilities identified in our test work increase the risk that a malicious attack on
CDPHP’s technical environment would be successful.

Recommendation 7

We recommend that CDPHP perform an analysis to determine the root cause for the
          system and third party patches missing on its servers. This should include analysis
of both the patches missing on a widespread basis and the individual servers that were
missing a large number of patches, as the root cause for each issue may be unique. Based on
this analysis, CDPHP should also update its procedures and/or implement additional controls
to address the problem of missing patches in its environment.

CDPHP Response

“CDPHP completed a root cause analysis and as a result is implementing changes to the
patching process, procedure, and technology to mitigate this risk in the future (Target Date
06/30/2016).”

OIG Comment




                                              10                   Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
  Evidence was provided that indicates that CDPHP has conducted a root cause analysis and
  has updated its patching methodology to include validation and remediation steps that are
  performed after the patch process is run to ensure patches were applied as expected; no
  further action is required.

  Recommendation 8

  We recommend that CDPHP remediate the specific vulnerabilities detected in our 

  vulnerability scans. 


  CDPHP Response

  “CDPHP is remediating the vulnerabilities detected in the scans (Target Date 

  08/31/2016).” 


3) Unsupported               Platforms

  Our scans also confirmed the presence of             platforms that are no longer supported by
  the vendor. CDPHP stated that some of the systems are being phased out in the short term,
  but the majority of identified systems do not yet have a phase out plan.

  FISCAM states that “Procedures should ensure that only current software releases are
  installed in information systems.” Noncurrent software may be vulnerable to malicious code
  and exploits that will never be patched by the vendor, increasing the risk that an attacker will
  be able to successfully gain access or compromise a system.

  Recommendation 9

  We recommend that CDPHP implement a phase-out plan to decommission or upgrade all
  unsupported software in its environment as soon as possible.

  CDPHP Response

  “CDPHP is actively decommissioning                               (Target Date 1/31/2017).

  In addition, the unsupported software identified in the report will either be updated or
  removed by the end of year (Target Date 01/31/2017).”




                                               11                  Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
      Recommendation 10

      We recommend that CDPHP implement a software lifecycle management process to ensure
      that it has controls in place to upgrade or decommission   platforms prior to the date
      that the vendor ends its support of the product.

      CDPHP Response

      “A policy to govern            System Lifecycle management was developed and a process
      was implemented to ensure CDPHP has a plan of action in place prior to an
      system reaching end-of-life (completed 04/05/2016).”

      OIG Comment

      Evidence was provided in response to the draft audit report that indicates that CDPHP has
      created an             System Lifecycle Management Policy. This policy requires the
      creation of “an action plan to manage the replacement of              systems . . . .” As part of
      the audit resolution process, we recommend that CDPHP provide OPM’s Healthcare and
      Insurance Audit Resolution Group with evidence that it has created action plans for the
                 systems it currently uses that are no longer supported by the vendor.

D. Configuration Management

   Configuration management controls are the policies and procedures used to define and 

   implement system security standards. We evaluated CDPHP’s configuration management 

   program as it relates to the operating platforms that support the processing of FEHBP claims, and 

   determined that the following controls were in place: 

    Established server security standards; and, 

    A system software change control process. 


   However, we did note one opportunity for improvement related to CDPHP’s configuration 

   management controls. 


   1) Configuration Compliance Auditing

      CDPHP has procedures in place to build systems that are compliant with its approved
      security standards. However, CDPHP has not established a process for routinely auditing or
      monitoring compliance with the standards after the initial configuration of the system. Over



                                                   12                   Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
      time as systems are maintained and updated, there is an increasing risk that systems will
      become non-compliant with the approved standards.
      FISCAM states that organizations should ensure that, “Current configuration information
      should be routinely monitored for accuracy. Monitoring should address the current baseline
      and operational configuration of the hardware, software, and firmware that comprise the
      information system.”
                                                                          CDPHP has established
      Failure to implement a thorough configuration compliance
                                                                          server configuration
      auditing program increases the risk that insecurely configured
                                                                          security standards, but
      servers remain undetected, creating a potential gateway for
                                                                          does not routinely audit
      malicious virus and hacking activity.
                                                                          systems for compliance.

      Recommendation 11

      We recommend that CDPHP routinely audit all server and database security configuration
      settings to ensure they are in compliance with the approved standards.

      CDPHP Response

      “CDPHP implemented compliance checks for                     at the end of 2015 (completed
      12/31/2015). The implementation of compliance checks for database security
      configurations is in progress (Target Date 06/30/2016). The implementation of compliance
      checks for                   is in progress (Target Date 01/31/2017).”

E. Contingency Planning

   We reviewed elements of CDPHP’s contingency planning program to determine whether
   controls were in place to prevent or minimize interruptions to business operations when
   disrupting events occur. Our review indicated that CDPHP has developed the following plans
   and procedures:
    Disaster recovery plan;
    Business continuity plan; and
    Emergency response procedures.

   We determined that the contingency planning documentation contained the critical elements
   suggested by NIST SP 800-34, Revision 1. CDPHP has identified and prioritized the systems
   and resources that are critical to business operations, and has developed detailed procedures to
   recover those systems and resources.




                                                   13                  Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
The sections below document areas for improvement related to CDPHP’s contingency planning
program.

1) Alternate Site Agreement

   CDPHP’s business continuity plan depends on the use of an alternate work site at
                         to support its claims processing staff should their primary location
   become unavailable. While there is an informal agreement in place for this arrangement,
   there is not yet a formalized contract with the other company to guarantee the availability of
   the work space. CDPHP has indicated that this was a work in progress. Failure to formalize
   the agreement could lead to differences of opinion in terms of the service level provided for
   an outside organization, and this increases the risk that the alternate site will not be fully
   available or functional in the event of a disaster.

   Recommendation 12

   We recommend CDPHP formalize the location sharing agreement with the alternate site.

   CDPHP Response

   “COMPLETE - CDPHP has formalized arrangements with the alternate site effective
   1/18/2016 (completed 3/1/2016).”

   OIG Comment
   Evidence was provided in response to the draft audit report that indicates that CDPHP has
   formalized the agreement with the alternate site; no further action is required.

2) Business Continuity Testing

   CDPHP maintains a documented business continuity plan and performs regular (at least
   annual) testing of the corresponding call trees used to communicate emergency situations
   with employees. However, CDPHP does not conduct formal testing of the entire business
   continuity plan. Testing should be used to validate that the plan is feasible.

   NIST SP 800-53, Revision 4, states that an organization should test “the contingency plan for
   the information system . . . to determine the effectiveness of the plan and organization
   readiness to execute the plan ….”

   Additionally, NIST SP 800-53, Revision 4, provides supplemental guidance around several
   methods for testing. These can include full function comprehensive tests (a single testing
   exercise at the alternate processing site to familiarize contingency personnel with the facility


                                                14                   Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
      and available resources and to evaluate the site’s capabilities to support contingency
      operations), partial functional tests of the plan at different times (isolated relocation testing
      by department or group), or tabletop exercises (a verbal walk through/simulation of the
      business continuity plan given a hypothetical disaster).

      Business continuity tests allow an organization to evaluate the effectiveness of the
      contingency plan with regard to the effect on the organizational operations and individuals.
      Failure to do so increases the risk that an organization cannot recover from a disruptive
      situation in a timely manner.

      Recommendation 13

      We recommend CDPHP routinely conduct tests of its business continuity plans to evaluate
      its effectiveness and feasibility.

      CDPHP Response

      “CDPHP has engaged an external firm to assist in conducting tabletop tests of the
      CDPHP Business Continuity Plans in 2016 (Target Date 12/31/2016).”

F. Application Controls

   The following sections detail our review of the applications and business processes supporting
   CDPHP’s claims adjudication process. CDPHP prices and adjudicates claims using a
   combination of         and             claims adjudication software. Our review included the
   following processes: application change control, claims lifecycle, member enrollment, and
   provider debarment.

   1) Application Configuration Management

      We evaluated the policies and procedures governing application development and change
      control of CDPHP’s claims processing systems.

      CDPHP has implemented policies and procedures related to application configuration
      management, and has also adopted a system development life cycle methodology that IT
      personnel follow during routine software modifications. We observed the following controls
      related to testing and approvals of software modifications:
       Policies and procedures that allow modifications to be tracked throughout the change
          process;




                                                    15                    Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
      Code, unit, system, and quality testing are conducted in accordance with industry
       standards; and
      A group independent from the software developers moves code between development
       and production environments to ensure separation of duties.

   Nothing came to our attention to indicate that CDPHP has not implemented adequate
   controls related to the application configuration management process. 


2) Claims Input, Processing, and Output Controls

   We evaluated the input, processing, and output controls associated with CDPHP’s claims

   adjudication process. We have determined that the following controls are in place over 

   CDPHP’s claims adjudication system: 

    Sufficient controls over the input and processing of claims;
    Documented policies and procedures for full reconciliation of claim output files; and
    Quality assurance reviews of each step in the lifecycle of a claim.


   During the claims processing walkthrough we noted that claims files are not securely stored
                          . Failure to protect health information assets increases the 

   probability of loss. 


   Recommendation 14

   We recommend that CDPHP implement a process to securely store claim files that are
   currently stored insecurely                 .

   CDPHP Response

   “Facilities has installed card access to the storage room                     that houses
   the claims documents (completed 3/27/2016).”

   OIG Comment
   Evidence was provided in response to the draft audit report that indicates that CDPHP has
   enhanced security for its claims storage area; no further action is required.

3) Enrollment

   We assessed CDPHP’s procedures for managing its member enrollment data. The process is
   mostly automated. Enrollment information is received electronically and a change report is




                                              16                  Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
  created to update the member database. The report is uploaded to the claims systems and
  errors are manually reviewed.

  Nothing came to our attention to indicate that CDPHP has not implemented adequate 

  controls over the enrollment process. 


4) Debarment

  We evaluated CDPHP’s procedures for updating its claims system with debarred provider
  information. CDPHP downloads the OPM OIG debarment list every month and provider
  flags are placed in the claims processing system. If a debarred provider is listed as a
  member’s primary care physician, member notification occurs immediately. Otherwise, any
  claim submitted for a debarred provider is flagged by CDPHP to adjudicate through the OPM
  OIG debarment process to include initial notification, a 15-day grace period, and then denial
  of claims.

  Nothing came to our attention to indicate that CDPHP has not implemented adequate 

  controls over the debarment process.





                                             17                  Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
IV. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT

Information Systems Audit Group

            , Auditor in Charge

             , IT Auditor

               , Senior Team Leader

                  , Senior Team Leader

               , Group Chief




                                         18   Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
                                              APPENDIX




April 25, 2016 
             , Auditor‐In‐Charge 
U.S. Office of Personnel Management 
RE:  Audit  of  Information  Systems  General  and  Application  Controls  at  Capital  District  Physicians’  Health 
Plan 
 


Dear             : 

This  letter  is  in response  to  the  findings  and  recommendations  noted  in  the  draft  audit  report  issued  on 
February 25, 2016.  CDPHP has reviewed the findings and recommendations in the draft report and have 
the following response. 

Access Controls 

Recommendation 1 
We  recommend  that  CDPHP  assign  a  unique  electronic  access  badge  to  every  employee  and  vendor 
authorized to enter its facilities unescorted. 

         CDPHP  Response:  COMPLETE  –  CDPHP  agrees  all  vendors  and  employees  should  have  unique 
         badges.  A log was created and implemented on April 18th to track the                            
                                            out of vendors assigned temporary cards for short term work.  
         All other vendors have unique assigned badges. 

Recommendation 2 
We  recommend  that  CDPHP  implement                                                                                    
                      at its data center. 
 
        CDPHP Response: CDPHP agrees and                                                                                 
                                            in the data center (Target Date (05/30/16). 

Recommendation 3 
We recommend CDPHP implement a process to routinely audit all                      accounts to verify that 
each employee’s access remains appropriate. 
 
       CDPHP  Response:  CDPHP  is  enhancing  the                  recertification  process  to  ensure  all 
       standard account access is appropriate (Target Date 08/31/2016). 




                                                                                   Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-007
Recommendation 4 
We  recommend  that  CDPHP  update  its  password  policy  to  address  minimum  password  age  and 
accordingly  reconfigure  its  information  systems  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  adjusted  corporate 
approved password policy. 
          
         CDPHP  Response: COMPLETE ‐  CDPHP  implemented  the  recommended  password  age setting  in 
                
                   (completed 03/18/2016) 
 
Recommendation 5 
We  recommend  that  CDPHP  implement                                                                     on 
its information systems. 
 
         CDPHP  Response:  CDPHP  is  implementing                                                           
                  (Target Date 7/31/2016). 
 
Network Security 
 
Recommendation 6 
We  recommend  that  CDPHP  perform  authenticated  vulnerability  scans  on  its  entire  network 
inventory. 

        CDPHP  Response:  CDPHP  is  implementing  recommended  changes  to  support                            

                                                    (Target Date 07/31/2016).
 
        In addition,                                    will be extended                                    by
 
        the end of October (Target Date 10/31/2016).
 

Recommendation 7 
We  recommend  that  CDPHP  perform  an  analysis  to  determine  the  root  cause  for  the                  
system and third party patches missing on its servers.  This should include analysis of both the patches 
missing on a widespread basis and the individual servers that were missing a large number of patches, 
as the root cause for each issue may be unique.  Based on this analysis, CDPHP should also update its 
procedures  and/or  implement  additional  controls  to  address  the  problem  of  missing  patches  in  its 
environment. 

        CDPHP Response: CDPHP completed a root cause analysis and as a result is implementing changes 
        to the patching process, procedure, and technology to mitigate this risk in the future (Target Date 
        06/30/2016). 

Recommendation 8 
We recommend that CDPHP remediate the specific vulnerabilities detected in our vulnerability scans. 
 
       CDPHP  Response:  CDPHP  is  remediating  the  vulnerabilities  detected  in  the  scans  (Target  Date 
       08/31/2016).  




                                                                                Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-
                                                       007
Recommendation 9 
We  recommend  that  CDPHP  implement  a  phase  out  plan  to  decommission  or  upgrade  all 
unsupported software in its environment as soon as possible.  
 
       CDPHP  Response:    CDPHP  is  actively  decommissioning                      servers  (Target  Date
 
       1/31/2017).
   
       In addition, the unsupported software identified in the report will either be updated or removed
 
       by the end of year (Target Date 01/31/2017).
 

Recommendation 10 
We recommend that CDPHP implement a software lifecycle management process to ensure that it 
has controls in place to upgrade or decommission                    platforms prior to date that the vendor 
ends its support of the product. 
 
        CDPHP Response: COMPLETE.  A policy to govern                      System Lifecycle management was 
        developed  and  a  process  was  implemented  to  ensure  CDPHP  has  a  plan  of  action  in  place  prior 
        to an            system reaching end‐of‐life (completed 04/05/2016). 
 
Configuration Management 
 
Recommendation 11 
We  recommend  that  CDPHP  routinely  audit  all  server  and  database  security  configuration  settings 
to ensure they are in compliance with the approved baselines. 
 
        CDPHP Response:  CDPHP implemented compliance checks for                             at the end of 2015 
        (completed  12/31/2015).    The  implementation  of  compliance  checks  for  database  security 
        configurations  is  in  progress  (Target  Date  06/30/2016).    The  implementation  of  compliance 
        checks for                      is in progress (Target Date 01/31/2017). 
         
Contingency Planning 

Recommendation 12 
We recommend CDPHP formalize the location sharing agreement with the alternate site. 
 
        CDPHP  Response:  COMPLETE  ‐  CDPHP  has  formalized  arrangements  with  the  alternate  site 
        effective 1/18/2016 (completed 3/1/2016). 
 
Recommendation 13 
We  recommend  CDPHP  routinely  conduct  tests  of  its  business  continuity  plans  to  evaluate  its 
effectiveness and feasibility. 
 
         CDPHP Response: CDPHP has engaged an external firm to assist in conducting tabletop tests of 
         the CDPHP Business Continuity Plans in 2016 (Target Date 12/31/2016). 
 




                                                                                     Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-
                                                          007
Claims Adjudication 
 
Recommendation 14 
We  recommend  that  CDPHP  implement  a  process  to  securely  store  claim  files  that  are  currently  stored 
insecurely                       . 
 
        CDPHP  Response:  COMPLETE.    Facilities  has  installed  card  access  to  the  storage  room            
                     that houses the claims documents (completed 3/27/2016). 
 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
 




               
VP Audit and Assurance, CISO, CRO 
Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan 




                                                                                   Report No. 1C-SG-00-16-
                                                         007
                                                                             



               Report Fraud, Waste, and
                   Mismanagement 


                        Fraud, waste, and mismanagement in
                     Government concerns everyone: Office of
                         the Inspector General staff, agency
                      employees, and the general public. We
                    actively solicit allegations of any inefficient
                          and wasteful practices, fraud, and
                     mismanagement related to OPM programs
                    and operations. You can report allegations
                                to us in several ways:


     By Internet:        http://www.opm.gov/our-inspector-general/hotline-to-
                         report-fraud-waste-or-abuse


      By Phone:          Toll Free Number:                  (877) 499-7295
                         Washington Metro Area:             (202) 606-2423


        By Mail:         Office of the Inspector General
                         U.S. Office of Personnel Management
                         1900 E Street, NW
                         Room 6400
                         Washington, DC 20415-1100