Computer-aided audit tools: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:15, 7 June 2022

Revision as of 14:16, 7 June 2022

Line 17:

===Traditional audit vs CAATTs on specific risks===

Another advantage of CAATTs is that it allows auditors to test for specific risks. For example, an insurance company may want to ensure that it doesn't pay any claims after a policy is terminated. Using traditional audit techniques this risk would be very difficult to test. The auditor would "randomly select" a "statistically valid" sample of claims (usually e if any of those claims were processed after a policy was terminated). Since the insurance company might process millions of claims the odds that any of those 30–50 "randomly selected" claims occurred after the policy was terminated is extremely unlikely.

Using CAATTs the auditor can select every claim that had a date of service after the policy termination date. The auditor then can determine if any claims were inappropriately paid. If they were, the auditor can then figure out why the controls to prevent this failure. In a real-life audit, the CAATTs auditor noted that several claims had been paid after policies were terminated. Using CAATTs the auditor was able to identify every claim that was paid and the exact dollar amount incorrectly paid by the insurance company. Furthermore, the auditor was able to identify the reason why these claims were paid. The reason why they were paid was because the participant paid their premium. The insurance company, having received a payment, paid the claims. Then after paying the claim the participant's check bounced. When the check bounced, the participant's policy was retrospectively terminated, but the claim was still paid costing the company hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.