Reports & Testimonies

  • GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed.

    GAO’s recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented. You can explore open recommendations by searching or browsing.

    GAO's priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. These recommendations are labeled as such. You can find priority recommendations by searching or browsing our open recommendations below, or through our mobile app.

  • Browse Open Recommendations

    Explore priority recommendations by subject terms or browse by federal agency

    Search Open Recommendations

    Search for a specific priority recommendation by word or phrase



  • Governing on the go?

    Our Priorities for Policy Makers app makes it easier for leaders to search our recommendations on the go.

    See the November 10th Press Release


  • Have a Question about a Recommendation?

    • For questions about a specific recommendation, contact the person or office listed with the recommendation.
    • For general information about recommendations, contact GAO's Audit Policy and Quality Assurance office at (202) 512-6100 or apqa@gao.gov.
  • « Back to Results List Sort by   

    Results:

    Subject Term: "Program abuses"

    12 publications with a total of 26 open recommendations including 2 priority recommendations
    Director: John Neumann
    Phone: (202) 512-3841

    8 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help improve agencies' implementation of the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements in the policy directives, the Administrator of SBA should confirm that each SBIR and STTR agency is implementing the minimum fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements in the policy directives, by, for example, requesting documentation from agencies.

    Agency: Small Business Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its comments on the draft report, SBA concurred with this recommendation. In its June 2017 letter on plans for implementing the recommendation, SBA stated that it will request that each participating agency confirm their implementation of its minimum fraud, waste, and Abuse prevention requirements by forwarding an email to each agency requesting confirmation of their compliance. We will review SBA's actions to address this recommendation once those actions are complete.
    Recommendation: To help improve agencies' implementation of the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements in the policy directives, the Administrator of SBA should request input from the participating agencies regarding the clarity of the requirements; review all of the SBIR and STTR minimum fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements, including the agency requirement to post information about successful SBIR or STTR fraud prosecutions; determine whether any additional guidance is needed; and revise the policy directives accordingly.

    Agency: Small Business Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its comments on the draft report, SBA concurred with this recommendation. In its June 2017 letter on plans for implementing the recommendation, SBA stated that it plans to discuss the issue with program managers at an upcoming meeting and will also contact all agencies in writing to inquire if additional clarity is needed regarding any of the FWA requirements. SBA said that additional guidance will be provided, if necessary. We will review SBA's actions to address this recommendation once those actions are complete.
    Recommendation: To help improve agencies' implementation of the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements in the policy directives, the Administrator of SBA should revise the fraud, waste, and abuse provisions in the policy directives to reflect the definition of essentially equivalent work used elsewhere in the policy directives and require participating agencies to check for essentially equivalent work that they fund as well as such work funded by other agencies.

    Agency: Small Business Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its comments on the draft report, SBA concurred with this recommendation. In its June 2017 letter on plans for implementing the recommendation, SBA stated that it will revise the SBIR and STTR Policy Directives to reflect the definition of essentially equivalent work as noted in section 3 of the policy directives. SBA also stated that it will work with all parties to determine how to best address the issue of duplication, noting that this is an important issue and a high priority for all parties involved. We will review SBA's actions to address this recommendation once those actions are complete.
    Recommendation: To help improve agencies' implementation of the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements in the policy directives, the Administrator of SBA should evaluate SBIR and STTR agencies' fraud, waste, and abuse outcomes to ensure the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements are appropriate and meet their intended purpose for the SBIR and STTR programs.

    Agency: Small Business Administration
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its comments on the draft report, SBA concurred with this recommendation. In its June 2017 letter on plans for implementing the recommendation, SBA stated that it will survey the participating agencies regarding whether the requirements are necessary and meeting their intended purposes, are placing undue burdens on the agencies, or need to be revised, updated, or eliminated. We will review SBA's actions to address this recommendation once those actions are complete.
    Recommendation: To help improve the implementation of the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) should direct the HHS SBIR and STTR program offices to collect copies of the self-certification forms from its SBIR and STTR awardees.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report, HHS did not concur with our recommendation. In its June 2017 letter on plans for implementing the recommendation, HHS stated that the National Institutes of Health will collect life cycle certifications from SBIR and STTR program recipients through its electronic reporting system, which will allow other HHS components that use that system to also collect the forms. The National Institutes of Health plans to begin collecting the life cycle certification forms in fiscal year 2018. We will review the actions to address this recommendation once they are complete.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD is implementing the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements to the OIGs, the Inspectors General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement the requirements themselves or delegate the implementation of the requirements to the investigative services.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Inspector General
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report and confirmed its concurrence in its May 2017 letter on the final report.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD is implementing the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements to the OIGs, the Inspectors General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement the requirements themselves or delegate the implementation of the requirements to the investigative services.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Naval Inspector General
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report and confirmed its concurrence in its May 2017 letter on the final report.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that DOD is implementing the fraud, waste, and abuse prevention requirements to the OIGs, the Inspectors General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force should implement the requirements themselves or delegate the implementation of the requirements to the investigative services.

    Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Inspector General
    Status: Open

    Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation in its comments on the draft report and confirmed its concurrence in its May 2017 letter on the final report.
    Director: Kathleen M. King
    Phone: (202) 512-7114

    2 open recommendations
    including 2 priority recommendations
    Recommendation: In order to better ensure proper Medicare payments and protect Medicare funds, CMS should seek legislative authority to allow the RAs to conduct prepayment claim reviews.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In May 2016, we recommended that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should seek legislative authority to allow the Recovery Auditors (RAs) to conduct prepayment claim reviews. The Department of Health and Human Services did not concur with this recommendation. We continue to believe CMS should seek legislative authority to allow RAs to conduct these reviews. Until CMS seeks and implements this authority, it will be missing an opportunity to help identify improper payments before they are made.
    Recommendation: In order to ensure that CMS has the information it needs to evaluate MAC effectiveness in preventing improper payments and to evaluate and compare contractor performance across its Medicare claim review program, CMS should provide the MACs with written guidance on how to accurately calculate and report savings from prepayment claim reviews.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
    Status: Open
    Priority recommendation

    Comments: In May 2016, we recommended that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should provide the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) with written guidance on how to accurately calculate and report savings from prepayment claim reviews. HHS concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will develop a uniform method to calculate savings from prepayment claim reviews and issue guidance to the MACs. According to CMS, as of April 2017, the agency is in the process of developing a methodology for the MACs to use to estimate the amount that CMS would have paid providers had their claims not been denied. We will assess HHS's actions once we can review any guidance provided to the MACs.
    Director: Carolyn L. Yocom
    Phone: (202) 512-7114

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure states have appropriate and current guidance to assist them in designing and administering Medicaid NEMT, the Secretary of HHS should direct CMS to assess current Medicaid NEMT guidance and update that guidance as needed.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
    Director: Maurer, Diana C
    Phone: (202) 512-9627

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To ensure the timely expenditure of VOCA grant funds and thereby limit the carryover of unexpended grant balances, minimize the need for multiple grant extensions, and strengthen OJJDP's capacity to collect and assess grantee performance information, the Assistant Attorney General for OJP should work with the Administrator of OJJDP to conduct a study to examine whether any of its administrative processes contribute to unnecessary delays in grantees' ability to expend VOCA funds within the established 12-month project period and make modifications to these processes as appropriate.

    Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: Office of the Assistant Attorney General
    Status: Open

    Comments: In April 2015, we found that OJJDP had several administrative review and approval processes in place that had contributed to delays in grantees' ability to begin spending their award funds. For instance, grantees could not access their funds until OJJDP had completed its internal review of grantees' budgets--a step that had taken more than 2 months, on average, after the grantees' project period had begun. We recommended that OJP examine its processes and, if appropriate, make modifications to prevent unnecessary delays in grantees' ability to expend VOCA funds within the established project period. In March 2017, OJP reported that its Office of Audit, Assessment and Management (OAAM), worked with OJJDP to complete an assessment to determine the impact of administrative processes on VOCA awards. Focusing on VOCA grants awarded in fiscal years 2010 through 2015, OAAM assessed a number of factors, including (1) the average timeframe for approval of budget reviews; (2) the average timeframe for approval of conference cost requests, and (3) the number of no-cost extensions granted. OJP reported that OAAM continues to work with OJJDP to review documentation to support implementation of process improvements to address the issues the assessment identified. In December 2017, OJP reported that DOJ anticipates issuing a report by the end of January 2018 that summarizes the results of OAAM's assessment and provide updates on the process improvements OJJDP has begun to implement. Examining the delays associated with its administrative review processes and making modifications as necessary will help OJP ensure the effective administration and timely use of grant funds.
    Recommendation: To ensure the timely expenditure of VOCA grant funds and thereby limit the carryover of unexpended grant balances, minimize the need for multiple grant extensions, and strengthen OJJDP's capacity to collect and assess grantee performance information, the Assistant Attorney General for OJP should work with the Administrator of OJJDP to, considering the results of this study, examine whether the current 12-month project period is realistic in light of any administrative processes that cause delay but cannot be modified and extend the project period if necessary.

    Agency: Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: Office of the Assistant Attorney General
    Status: Open

    Comments: In April 2015, we found that VOCA grant activities were not being completed within the time parameters OJJDP established for the grant program, and that this may affect the ability of grantees to complete their grant goals and objectives. Specifically, we found that for the 28 VOCA grants that OJJDP awarded from fiscal years 2010 through 2013, grantees had expended less than 20 percent, on average, of each grant they received during the original 12-month project period. In particular, we found that OJJDP's processes for reviewing grantees' budgets and conference planning requests were contributing to delays in grantees' ability to begin spending their funds. We recommended that OJP examine whether 12 months is an appropriate project period length to ensure that VOCA grantees are well positioned to fully expend their grant funds. In March 2017, OJP reported that its Office of Audit, Assessment and Management (OAAM), worked with OJJDP to complete an assessment to determine the impact of administrative processes on VOCA awards. Focusing on VOCA grants awarded in fiscal years 2010 through 2015, OAAM assessed a number of factors, including (1) the average timeframe for approval of budget reviews; (2) the average timeframe for approval of conference cost requests, and (3) the number of no-cost extensions granted. OJP reported that OAAM continues to work with OJJDP to review documentation to support implementation of process improvements to address the issues the assessment identified. In December 2017, OJP reported that DOJ anticipates issuing a report by the end of January 2018 that summarizes the results of OAAM's assessment and provide updates on the process improvements OJJDP has begun to implement. Once OJJDP examines its administrative delays, makes any necessary changes, and reviews the original project period length, OJP will be better positioned to ensure that grantees have an appropriate period in which to expend VOCA grant awards.
    Director: Michael Courts
    Phone: (202) 512-8980

    3 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To enhance State's efforts to protect SWT participants from abuse and the SWT program from misuse, the Secretary of State should direct the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs to establish a mechanism to ensure that sponsors provide complete and consistent lists of fees that participants must pay.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: In response to our recommendation that the State Department (State) establish a mechanism to ensure that sponsor provide complete and consistent lists of fees that exchange visitors on the Summer Work Travel program must pay, State acknowledged it collected such fee information in 2016. As of August 3, 2017, we are awaiting State's review and analysis of this information to ensure the price lists are consistent and comprehensive.
    Recommendation: To enhance State's efforts to protect SWT participants from abuse and the SWT program from misuse, the Secretary of State should direct the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs to establish a mechanism to establish a mechanism to ensure that information about these participant fees is made publicly available.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: In response to our recommendation that the State Department (State) establish a mechanism to ensure that information about Summer Work Travel participant fees is made publically available, State noted that it had published a notice for proposed rulemaking on January 12, 2017. When finalized, this would require would require each sponsor to include in its recruiting material, and post on its main Web site (e.g., with a visible link to such a page on the sponsor?s homepage), examples of the typical monthly budgets of exchange visitors placed in various regions of the United States to illustrate wages (based on the required weekly minimum of 32-hours of work at a typical host placement) balanced against itemized fees and estimated costs. Until State finalizes this rule, they cannot enforce this requirement. As of July 27, 2017, this information was not available to the public on the six sponsor websites we checked.
    Recommendation: To enhance State's efforts to protect SWT participants from abuse and the SWT program from misuse, the Secretary of State should direct the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs to establish detailed criteria that will allow State to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of opportunities for cultural activities outside the workplace that sponsors provide to SWT participants.

    Agency: Department of State
    Status: Open

    Comments: In response to our recommendation that the State Department (State) establish detailed criteria that will allow it to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of opportunities for cultural activities outside the workplace that sponsors provide to Summer Work Travel participants, State published a notice for proposed rulemaking on January 12, 2017. When finalized, this would require sponsors and their host entities to create cultural opportunities at least once per month. The proposed rule also notes that State will issue guidance outlining best practices for cross-cultural programming. As of July 27, 2017 this is not finalized.
    Director: Vijay A. D'Souza
    Phone: (202) 512-7114

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: In order to ensure that efforts to address prenatal opioid use and NAS are systematically and effectively planned and coordinated across the federal government, the Director of ONDCP should document the process, including discussions held and information considered, of developing action items on prenatal opioid use and NAS. This may include documenting gaps that were considered in developing action items.

    Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of National Drug Control Policy
    Status: Open

    Comments: In May 2017 and July 2017, ONDCP officials described the process used to develop the action items related to prenatal opioid use and NAS for the 2015 National Drug Control Strategy report. Specifically, officials described working directly with federal agencies to identify proposals for action items and review proposals during an interagency working group meeting in March 2015. However, ONDCP officials could not provide us any formal documentation, such as meeting minutes, showing the process used or what gaps were considered in developing the action items. ONDCP officials also told us the action items related to prenatal opioid use and NAS for the 2015 Strategy have been generally completed. No action items related to prenatal opioid use and NAS were included in the 2016 Strategy and ONDCP officials said they did not know whether any related action items will be included for the 2017 Strategy. We will update the status of this recommendation after future Strategy reports are published.
    Director: Kay E. Brown
    Phone: (202) 512-7215

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of FNS to establish additional guidance to help states analyze SNAP transaction data to better identify SNAP recipient households receiving replacement cards that are potentially engaging in trafficking, and assess whether the use of replacement card benefit periods may better focus this analysis on high-risk households potentially engaged in trafficking.

    Agency: Department of Agriculture
    Status: Open

    Comments: FNS officials reported that, in September 2013, they awarded a contract to provide expert business consultation and technical assistance in the area of recipient fraud prevention and detection to 7 states. The purpose of the contract was to improve how effectively recipients suspected of trafficking SNAP benefits were identified and investigated, including the use of predictive analytics involving transaction and replacement card data to uncover potential recipient trafficking. As of August 2017, FNS officials reported that they have completed studies in 10 states, helping the states build predictive analytics models that incorporate use of replacement card data to better identify SNAP recipient trafficking. FNS officials report that the models have demonstrated a significant improvement in state effectiveness. FNS officials also report that, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2016, the agency conducted a training program for state technical staff to teach them how to build predictive models that incorporate the use of replacement card data. In addition, FNS officials report that the agency is currently developing a SNAP Fraud Framework to provide guidance to states on improving fraud prevention and detection, including the use of excessive card replacements and other data sources, as potential indicators of fraud. FNS tentatively anticipates releasing the framework by the end of calendar year 2017. GAO will monitor these efforts and await information, including related technical assistance materials and documentation, on how these activities are used to guide states' efforts to use transaction and replacement card data to better focus on high-risk households for potential investigation.
    Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of FNS to reassess the effectiveness of the current guidance and tools recommended to states for monitoring e-commerce and social media websites, and use this information to enhance the effectiveness of the current guidance and tools.

    Agency: Department of Agriculture
    Status: Open

    Comments: FNS officials reported that, in 2016, the agency conducted additional analysis to evaluate states' current use of social media in their detection of SNAP trafficking and develop a proof of concept for the use of market-leading tools to assist states in more efficient monitoring. Based on the information gained through this analysis, FNS officials reported in August 2017 that a draft of the social media guidance is currently in FNS clearance and is expected to be released by the end of the calendar year. GAO will await the issuance of this guidance.
    Director: Brown, Kay E
    Phone: (202) 512-7215

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To provide the basis for greater consistency across states in assessing elder justice service delivery, the Secretary of HHS, as chairman of the Elder Justice Coordinating Council, should direct the Council to make it a priority to identify common objectives for the federal elder justice effort and define common outcomes.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: HHS agreed with this recommendation and noted the formation of the Elder Justice Coordinating Council (EJCC) as an effort to develop common objectives and plans for action to address elder justice issues. As of June 2014, the EJCC had developed eight recommendations for increased federal leadership in combating elder abuse based on input from elder justice experts in financial exploitation, public policy and awareness, enhancing response, and advancing research. Staff compiled information on best and promising practices for primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention; empirical evidence from peer-reviewed research; approaches used in related disciplines; and information about where gaps exist in the collective knowledge about elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. Staff then turned the suggestions into proposals with accompanying steps for federal action. Those proposals were subsequently presented at two public EJCC meetings (May and September 2013) and were made available for public review and comment. The Secretary of HHS formally accepted the recommendations in May 2014, and they were posted to the EJCC page of the Administration on Aging's website. In May 2015, HHS reported that the EJCC had published these recommendations in a document entitled "Eight (8)Recommendations for Increased Federal Involvement in Addressing Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation" and stated that the recommendations addressed the issues identified in GAO's recommendation. While we recognized that these 8 recommendations corresponded to the common objectives included in our recommendation, we also sought from HHS information on the status of common outcomes for the objectives. HHS reported that outcomes for the eight common objectives that the EJCC has approved were being discussed, but have not yet been approved. In March 2016,HHS reported that the EJCC's Elder Justice Working Group continued to gather and discuss action steps and outcomes for the eight recommendations. We will monitor the EJCC's progress in agreeing upon outcomes and close the recommendation when agreement on outcomes is reported.
    Director: Melvin, Valerie C
    Phone: (202)512-6304

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To help ensure that the development and implementation of IDR and One PI are successful in helping the agency meet the goals and objectives of its program integrity initiatives, the Administrator of CMS should implement and manage plans for incorporating data in IDR to meet schedule milestones.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: While CMS has incorporated shared systems Medicare Part A (insurance for hospital and other inpatient services), Part B (insurance for hospital outpatient, physician, and other services), and three states' Medicaid data into IDR, it has not yet implemented and managed plans for incorporating all states' Medicaid data, as GAO recommended in June 2011. As a result, the repository does not yet include all the data that were planned to be incorporated by the end of 2012, and efforts to add the remaining states' Medicaid data to IDR continue to be behind schedule. As of March 2017, agency officials are working to develop plans to integrate all states' data into IDR as part of ongoing program integrity initiatives.
    Recommendation: To help ensure that the development and implementation of IDR and One PI are successful in helping the agency meet the goals and objectives of its program integrity initiatives, the Administrator of CMS should define any measurable financial benefits expected from the implementation of IDR and One PI.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of March 2017, CMS officials reported that they have identified areas of potential cost savings to be achieved by requiring program integrity contractors to use IDR and One PI, as GAO recommended in June 2011. CMS is awarding new contracts to include this requirement, which is expected to result in the agency no longer funding contractors' efforts to establish and maintain their own data warehouses and analytical tools. However, not all of the contracts have been awarded and, therefore, the requirement has not been fully implemented. Until all the new contracts have been awarded that require the contractors to use IDR and One PI for program integrity purposes, CMS will not have reasonable assurance that using the systems will help improve CMS's ability to detect fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and to achieve the $21 billion in financial benefits program officials projected.
    Director: Dicken, John E
    Phone: (202)512-7043

    2 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To address state agency practices and external pressure that may compromise survey accuracy, the Administrator of CMS should reestablish expectations through guidance to state survey agencies that noncitation practices--official or unofficial--are inappropriate, and systematically monitor trends in states' citations.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: September 2017: HHS reported CMS is working to address this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive further information. September 2016: CMS has not yet provided additional information. GAO will update the recommendation, as appropriate, when information is received. July 2015: CMS indicated it will provide GAO with updated actions in early 2016. May 2014: Though the best method to address external pressures on State Agencies was not identified, CMS is continuing to address the consistency, effectiveness, and integrity of the survey process through the following activities: reviewing citation patterns for the nursing home surveys; systematically identifying and testing opportunities to make the survey process more efficient and effective; and holding monthly CO and RO calls to address consistencies in the survey and enforcement process. CMS Regional Offices also routinely hold conference calls (e.g., monthly) with the State Survey Agencies in their region to address survey, enforcement and certification issues and conduct the federal validation survey of the state's findings. CMS is looking to review specific regulatory deficiencies for trends and areas where additional guidance is needed. Anticipated completion date of October 31, 2014. June 2013: Though the best method to address external pressures on State Agencies was not identified. CMS is continuing to address the consistency, effectiveness, and integrity of the survey process through the following activities: reviewing citation patterns for the nursing home surveys; systematically identifying and testing opportunities to make the survey process more efficient and effective; and holding monthly CO and RO calls to address consistencies in the survey and enforcement process. CMS Regional Offices also routinely hold conference calls (e.g., monthly) with the State Survey Agencies in their region to address survey, enforcement and certification issues and conduct the federal validation survey of the state's findings. September 2010: CMS held a State/Federal meeting in April 2010. The discussion with the State/Federal meeting did not shed light on best method to address possible external pressures on State Agencies. Some expressed that poor documentation/inadequate investigation may cause deficiencies to be dropped and not necessarily external pressure. They will continue to work on developing next steps.
    Recommendation: To address state agency practices and external pressure that may compromise survey accuracy, the Administrator of CMS should establish expectations through guidance to state survey agencies to communicate and collaborate with their CMS regional offices when they experience significant pressure from legislators or the nursing home industry that may affect the survey process or surveyors' perceptions.

    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    Status: Open

    Comments: September 2017: HHS reported CMS is working to address this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive further information. September 2016: CMS has not yet provided additional information. GAO will update the recommendation, as appropriate, when information is received. July 2015: CMS indicated it will provide GAO with updated actions in early 2016. May 2014: CMS has undertaken a broader review of both the QIS and traditional survey processes, and the extent to which the methodology and guidance result in an effective and efficient survey process. In August 2012, CMS convened a broad group of surveyors to address these issues and make recommendations which have resulted in continuing work to develop and test alternative guidance and processes. CMS is looking to review specific regulatory deficiencies for trends and areas where additional guidance is needed. Anticipated Completion date of December 31, 2014. June 2013: Though the best method to address external pressures on State Agencies was not identified. CMS is continuing to address the consistency, effectiveness, and integrity of the survey process through the following activities: reviewing citation patterns for the nursing home surveys; systematically identifying and testing opportunities to make the survey process more efficient and effective; and holding monthly CO and RO calls to address consistencies in the survey and enforcement process. CMS Regional Offices also routinely hold conference calls (e.g., monthly) with the State Survey Agencies in their region to address survey, enforcement and certification issues and conduct the federal validation survey of the state's findings. September 2010: CMS held a State/Federal meeting in April 2010. The discussion with the State/Federal meeting did not shed light on best method to address possible external pressures on State Agencies. CMS will continue to work on developing next steps.
    Director: Williams, Orice M
    Phone: (202)512-5837

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: To address the current information gap in Regulation SHO for prime brokerage arrangements and mitigate the impact of any unintended consequences caused by SEC rules, as well as ensure consistent implementation of SEC rules by the industry, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission should finalize, in an expedited manner upon finalization of the temporary rule, the revised 1994 Prime Broker Letter.

    Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: As of 7/18/13, the revised Prime Broker letter has not been finalized.
    Director: Goldstein, Mark L
    Phone: (202)512-3000

    1 open recommendations
    Recommendation: Given the critical importance of telecommunications technologies to schools and libraries, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should direct FCC staff to establish performance goals and measures for the E-rate program that are consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act. FCC should use the resulting performance data to develop analyses of the actual impact of E-rate funding and to determine areas for improved program operations.

    Agency: Federal Communications Commission
    Status: Open

    Comments: In an August 2007 order, FCC adopted two performance measures for the E-rate program, one for Internet connectivity and the other for application processing. The order did not include specific E-rate program goals, although FCC said in this order that it anticipated adopting performance goals as it and USAC gained experience with the performance measures. While FCC's efforts to develop performance measures have the potential to eventually produce better information than is currently available on E-rate program performance, these measures fall short when compared to the key characteristics of successful performance measures and FCC still has not established program goals. FCC says it is still working on developing goals and performance measures for the Universal Service programs.