New Release IIA-CIA-Part2 CIA Questions

Impairment of Independence: The organizational independence of the internal audit activity can be impaired if the CAE has had significant roles in management, such as managing the finance department. This prior involvement may create a conflict of interest or perceived bias.

IIA Standards on Independence: The IIA emphasizes the importance of independence and objectivity in internal auditing. Any prior management role, especially in the department being audited, can compromise the CAE's objectivity.

Examples of Impairment:

Administrative Reporting: While reporting administratively to the CFO (option A) or functionally to the CEO (option C) does not inherently impair independence, managing the finance department previously (option D) creates a direct conflict.

Overseeing Risk Management: Overseeing the risk management function (option B) is part of the CAE's responsibilities and does not impair independence if handled properly.

IIA Standard 1100 - Independence and Objectivity.

Collaboration with Compliance Teams: Internal auditors often collaborate with internal compliance teams to leverage their work. This allows auditors to gain insights and expand their audit coverage efficiently.

IIA Standards: According to the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), internal auditors can rely on the work of other assurance providers, including internal compliance teams, as long as the auditors assess the adequacy and competency of the compliance team's work.

Efficiency in Audit Coverage: By relying on internal compliance teams, internal auditors can ensure comprehensive coverage of the organization without significantly increasing direct audit hours, thus enhancing efficiency.

IIA Standard 2050 - Coordination and Reliance.

The statement that "Senior management is charged with overseeing the establishment risk management and control processes" is false. Senior management is typically responsible for establishing risk management and control processes, not just overseeing them. The board or its committees usually have the oversight role.

Analytical review procedures involve evaluating financial information by studying plausible relationships among financial and non-financial data.

Government Index Comparison: Comparing the organization's increase in health-care costs with a relevant government index provides a benchmark to assess whether the cost increases are in line with broader economic trends.

Claims Review: While reviewing all claims could help identify specific overpayments, it is more labor-intensive and less effective for evaluating overall reasonableness.

Competitive Bids: Obtaining bids from other health-care administrators might control future costs but does not evaluate the reasonableness of past cost increases.

Industry Comparison: Comparing costs with those incurred by similar organizations could be useful but might not provide a standardized measure like a government index.