A review of contracting practices within the Department of Health and Human Services has revealed opportunities for cost savings, and should spur further audits of one of Maine’s most expensive government agencies.

The review, by the Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability, examined one facet of DHHS services: shared-cost, contracted programs ineligible for MaineCare. These programs cost $185 million in 2008.

OPEGA says improved cash management by DHHS, in this small contracting realm could save $2.6 million in overpayments annually, and avoid the difficult, time-consuming process of retrieving these funds once disbursed.

And an aggressive effort to collect outstanding overpayments, OPEGA found, could bring in $966,000.

Initially, OPEGA was tasked with reviewing all DHHS contracting, in light of tight fiscal times at the state. The watchdog trimmed its look to these specific contracts, to deliver a timely response to the Legislature.

From this small sample, the potential for savings within other DHHS practices seems high, and continued reviews should occur. The agency is 32 percent of Maine’s general fund – there is plenty of material to examine.

Reports like these from OPEGA, as well, reinforce the agency’s value to Maine’s government and taxpayers. It is a nonpartisan bean-counter that evaluates the minutia of bureaucracy for the benefit of everybody, and nobody.

When lawmakers battled over OPEGA during budget deliberations earlier this year, lines were drawn between those who believed OPEGA earns its keep, and those who felt its duties could be done by others.

There was the appearance, as well, that OPEGA draws political heat because its unvarnished assessments of government programs embarrasses the ruling party.

Maybe so. Nobody likes being criticized. But time and again, the balanced, microscopic reviews of government functioning by OPEGA proves the small agency is a valuable research tool.

This DHHS report is a prime example. Yes, OPEGA found ways to improve practices to save funds. But it also recognized how far DHHS has come, since hiring a consultant in 2006 to reform its financial management.

DHHS is continually revamping its financial practices, and is making strides. This still means, however, the agency – and the public – can benefit from analyses that detail where opportunities for savings still lie.

The report did its job – review contracting practices – while putting the agency’s overall financial management into context. This the definition of fair.

Restoring OPEGA was the right move. So would be using the results from its DHHS analysis for a wider review. This will benefit taxpayers concerned with waste, and an agency still improving its fiscal practices.

In short, it will make government better.

What’s wrong with that?