Food Instrument Redemption and Disposition


  1. 1. Food Instrument Disposition Procedures
  2. 2. Unclaimed, Voided, Prorated Food Instruments
  3. 3. Lost/Stolen Food Instruments
  4. 4. Food Instrument Redemption Screening (7 CFR 246.12(k)(1))
  5. 5. Price Lists
  6. 6. System to Detect Suspected Overcharges

1. Food Instrument Disposition Procedures

  1. The State agency system assures 100% disposition of all issued food instruments
    • Yes  - Checked
    • No
    • If no, specify the circumstances that prevent 100% disposition:
  2. The State agency monitors each local agency's:
    • Number of manual food instruments utilized
    • Number of unclaimed food instruments
    • Number of voided food instruments  - Checked
    • Number of redeemed food instruments with no issuance record  - Checked
  3. Local agencies are supplied with a report on the final disposition of its food instruments:
    • Yes (specify period): Weekly
    • No

ADDITIONAL DETAIL: Food Delivery Appendix and/or Procedure Manual (citation):

2. Unclaimed, Voided, Prorated Food Instruments

  1. The State agency requires local agencies to return "unclaimed/not picked up" food instruments:
    • Not applicable  - Checked
    • Daily
    • Weekly
    • Monthly
    • Other (specify):
  2. The State agency requires local agencies to return "voided" food instruments:
    • Not applicable  - Checked
    • Daily
    • Weekly
    • Monthly
    • Other (specify):

ADDITIONAL DETAIL: Food Delivery Appendix and/or Procedure Manual (citation):

3. Lost/Stolen Food Instruments

  1. The State agency requires local agencies to report lost/stolen food instruments to (check all that apply):
    • State agency - Checked
    • Police department  - Checked
    • State agency's banking institution
    • Other (specify):
  2. Replacement/duplicate food instruments are issued when food instruments are reported lost:
    • No  - Checked
    • Depends on the circumstances
    • Yes (If food instruments are reissued, it is done):
      • Immediately
      • Following notification of State agency/bank agency
      • After 1st day waiting period (specify number of days)
  3. Replacement/duplicate food instruments are issued when they are reported stolen:
    • No  - Checked
    • Depends on the circumstances
    • Yes (If food instruments are reissued, it is done):
    • Immediately
    • Following notification of State agency/bank agency
    • After _____ day waiting period (specify # days)
  4. The State agency or its banking institution takes the following action after it is notified by the local agency of lost/stolen food instruments (check all that apply):
    • Stops payment on the lost/stolen food instruments  - Checked
    • Notifies vendor
    • Other (specify): WIC PPM, Part 2 Sec 5
    • Please provide a copy/citation for State agency's policy procedures that ensure that lost/stolen food instruments cannot be redeemed.
  5. The local agency documents in the participant's file that replacement food instruments were issued:
    • Yes  - Checked
    • No
  6. The State agency monitors the level of reported lost/stolen food instruments by local agency:
    • Yes  - Checked
    • No
  7. If it is established that lost/stolen food instruments are transacted by the participant who reported them lost/stolen, the following actions are taken:
    • A claim for cash repayment is issued to participant  - Checked
    • Participant is disqualified
    • Participant receives a warning  - Checked
    • Other (specify):
  8. If lost/stolen food instruments are transacted by someone other than the participant, the following actions are taken:
    • Reported to police for investigation  - Checked
    • State agency or local agency does an investigation
    • Other (specify):

ADDITIONAL DETAIL: Food Delivery Appendix and/or Procedure Manual (citation): WIC PPM, Part 2, Section 5, #2 Lost or Stole FI's

4. Food Instrument Redemption Screening (7 CFR 246.12(k)(1))

  1. Describe in detail how the State agency sets maximum allowable reimbursement levels for use in screening food instruments for payment (including whether the State agency uses vendors' shelf prices to set maximum reimbursement levels and how reimbursement levels are linked to competitive price criteria). If the State agency sets maximum allowable amounts differently for above-50-percent vendors and regular vendors, please explain the different methods used.
    1. The State agency establishes maximum allowable reimbursement levels for:
      • Yes No
        (a) Each peer group X
        (b) Each food instrument or food category X
        (c) Other (please specify) X
    2. The State agency establishes maximum allowable reimbursement using:
      • Yes No
        (a) Standard deviations X
        (b) A percentage above the average redemption amount* X
        (c) Other (please specify)
      • * If yes, specify the percentage and explain how the State agency determined that this percentage is appropriate.
    3. The allowable reimbursement levels include a factor to reflect:
      • Yes No
        Wholesale price fluctuations X
        Inflation X
        Other (please specify:)
  2. The State agency screens food instruments through a pre-edit (before payment) or post-edit (after payment) process to detect the following:
    • Not Applicable Pre-Edit Screen Post-Edit Screen
      Purchase price exceeds price limitations X
      Purchase price missing X
      Altered purchase price X
      Vendor identification missing X
      Invalid/counterfeit vendor identification X
      Transacted before specified period X
      Transacted after specified period X X
      Redeemed after specified period X
      Altered dates X
      Missing signature X
      Mismatched signature X
      Altered signature X
      Other (specify): X
  3. When the payment amount on a food instrument exceeds the maximum allowable reimbursement amount, what action does the State agency take?
    • Reimburses the vendor for amounts up to the maximum allowable amount
    • Rejects the food instrument, but allow the vendor to resubmit  - Checked
    • Rejects the food instrument without allowing the vendor to resubmit
    • Other (please specify)
  4. d. Where pre-edit screens are used, the proportion of food instruments reviewed include:
    • All food instruments  - Checked
    • Percentage of food instruments ( %)
    • Other:
  5. The edit system(s) that screens for price limitations and vendor overcharges rejects food instruments based on:
    • Pre-Edit Post-Edit
      Not To Exceed or Maximum Prices X
      Precentage above average (#%)
      Amount above average ($#)
      Other (specify):
  6. The following actions are used to control against unauthorized stores redeeming food instruments:
    • Recover vendor stamp when vendor is no longer authorized
    • Conduct compliance buy to verify if unauthorized store redeems food instruments  - Checked
    • State agency or its banking institution checks vendor ID numbers on food instruments submitted for redemption against the authorized vendor list before paying vendors for food instruments submitted for redemption  - Checked
    • Inform all participants who might use the unauthorized store  - Checked
    • Other (specify):

ADDITIONAL DETAIL: Food Delivery Appendix and/or Procedure Manual (citation):

5. Price Lists

  1. Price list information is routinely collected from vendors:
    • Yes  - Checked
    • No (Proceed to item #6)
  2. Price list data are collected:
    • Monthly
    • Quarterly  - Checked
    • Semiannually
    • Other (specify):
  3. Price data are collected by:
    • State agency staff
    • Local agency staff
    • Reports are submitted by vendors  - Checked
    • Other (specify):
  4. The data collected has food prices for (check all that apply):
    • All brands and sizes of supplemental foods
    • Highest price supplemental food items within food categories
    • All authorized vendors
    • A sample of authorized vendors (please describe the sampling method used)
    • Other (specify): Most popular supplemental foods at the Least Expensive Brand policy for milk, cheese and peanut butter
  5. The (Checked) State agency/ local agency verifies price data provided by vendors:
    • During routine monitoring visits  - Checked
    • Does not verify on a routine basis
    • If the vendor is identified as a high-risk vendor  - Checked
    • Other (explain): During vendor price surveys
  6. The (Checked) State agency/ local agency analyzes price data:
    • Manually on a routine or as needed basis
    • On an ADP system and uses it to:  - Checked
      • Generate estimated food instrument values  - Checked
      • Help inform WIC staff on vendor selection decisions  - Checked
      • Develop vendor peer groups
      • Flag individual food instruments that appear to be overcharges  - Checked
      • Other (specify):

6. System to Detect Suspected Overcharges

  1. Does the State agency screen for suspected overcharges:
    • Yes, vendor claims are issued for overcharges.
    • No, the State agency makes price adjustments to food instruments submitted for redemption at amounts above edit limits
    • No
    • Other (specify): All Food instruments have pre-edit review to determine whether the vendors cost exceeds the Department's estimated value of the food instrument.
  2. The following best describes how the vendor is billed for overcharges:
    • Based on the vendor's reported prices
    • Based on redemption values of other vendors in the vendor's peer group
    • Based on redemption values of all vendors
    • Other (specify): Illinois does not bill for Overcharges, we use a pre-edit system and use a maximum value printed on the voucher. Any vendor exceeding that value with their charges will receive the Food Instrument back as a rejected "NSF" check."
  3. To receive payment or appeal a claim for a vendor overcharge, the vendor must:
    • Provide an updated price list
    • Provide written justification for the higher prices
    • Provide receipts
    • Other (specify): State agency conducts pre-edit review on a maximum value printed Food Instrument. All Food Instruments that exceed the maximum value are rejected and must be re-submitted for payment.
  4. The following actions are taken when a vendor has chronic overcharging problems:
    • Routine monitoring or remedial vendor training is conducted
    • Vendor is designated as high-risk and scheduled for compliance investigation
    • Vendor is provided with a written warning of potential sanction for overcharging
    • Vendor is terminated for cause
    • Vendor is sanctioned
    • Other (specify): N/A The vendor does not receive payment when exceeding the maximum value of the Food Instrument in Illinois.

ADDITIONAL DETAIL: Food Delivery Appendix and/or Procedure Manual (citation):