Reports & Testimonies
Recommendations Database
GAO’s recommendations database contains report recommendations that still need to be addressed. 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. Below you can search only priority recommendations, or search all recommendations.
Our recommendations help congressional and agency leaders prepare for appropriations and oversight activities, as well as help improve government operations. Moreover, when implemented, some of our priority recommendations can save large amounts of money, help Congress make decisions on major issues, and substantially improve or transform major government programs or agencies, among other benefits.
As of October 25, 2020, there are 4812 open recommendations, of which 473 are priority recommendations. Recommendations remain open until they are designated as Closed-implemented or Closed-not implemented.
Browse or Search Open Recommendations
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.
Results:
Subject Term: "Evaluation methods"
GAO-20-254, Jun 23, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Comments: OMB did not provide comments on this recommendation. As of July 2020, we are following up with the agency and will update the status of the recommendation when we receive requested information from OMB.
GAO-17-622, Jul 20, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-2757
Agency: Department of Commerce
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2020, the Bureau had not yet begun its 2030 testing and evaluation planning. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
GAO-17-20, Dec 14, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: DOT concurred with this recommendation and, in March 2019, issued a memo directing secretarial offices and operating administrations involved in awarding discretionary grants to implement our recommendations and to include them in their policies and procedures. In June 2019, we reported that, due to a number of issues, it is unclear how this action will address our recommendation. For example, we found that the memo was essentially limited to a repetition of our recommendation and that DOT did not take steps to ensure that the various affected offices consistently interpret and implement the recommendation. DOT officials told us they wanted to provide the affected offices flexibility to implement the recommendation, but that the Department would assess the need for additional guidance based on revisions to its Financial Assistance Guidance Manual. DOT completed these revisions effective January 2020, and all affected offices are expected to complete developing their policies and procedures by May 2020. We will continue to monitor the Department's actions and assess the extent to which they address our recommendation.
GAO-16-137, Apr 11, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) indicated that it had further reviewed our recommendation and determined that updating the agency's study on the effect of VA-provided Medicare-covered services on per capita county Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) spending rates using the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) utilization and diagnosis data was not feasible. Challenges cited by HHS included (1) pricing each VA encounter using Medicare payment rules; (2) determining which Medicare provider would have treated each beneficiary; and (3) the resources required to have an ongoing data feed with VA and to protect VA utilization and diagnosis data. While we acknowledge that there may be challenges associated with incorporating VA utilization and diagnosis data into HHS's analysis, we believe that HHS needs to do additional work before it can determine whether such an approach is feasible. For example, while HHS noted resource concerns related to sharing and storing sensitive VA data, the agency already receives and stores some VA data. It remains unclear whether HHS has assessed what additional resources would be needed to store VA utilization and diagnosis data and whether such data would need to be shared via an ongoing data feed-another challenge mentioned by HHS. As of June 2020, HHS has not provided us with any additional information about actions it has taken to address this recommendation. We continue to believe that HHS should assess the feasibility of implementing a methodology for estimating the effect of VA-provided Medicare-covered services on per capita county Medicare FFS spending rates that incorporates VA data.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) indicated that there are a number of limitations that would impede the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) ability to conduct an analysis of veteran versus nonveteran payments to MA plans. HHS indicated that in order to conduct a thorough assessment, CMS would need utilization and diagnosis data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which would take several years to collect and analyze. In addition, HHS indicated that if CMS determined an adjustment was needed, the agency would have to overcome other data, operational, and financial challenges related to making the adjustment. As a result, HHS indicated that implementing such an adjustment would be infeasible. However, CMS currently adjusts the benchmark to account for VA spending on Medicare-covered services without VA utilization and diagnosis data. While we agree that VA utilization and diagnosis data may improve the accuracy of an adjustment to MA payments to ensure that payments to MA plans are equitable for veterans and nonveterans, it is unclear why CMS could not make an adjustment without VA utilization and diagnosis data. As of June 2020, HHS has not provided us with any additional information about actions it has taken to address this recommendation. In order for us to close this recommendation, CMS would need to assess whether an additional adjustment to MA payments is needed.
GAO-15-337, Mar 19, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-2700
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: During our audit of IRS's FY 2019 financial statements, , the agency submitted this recommendation for closure, but our testing determined it should remain open. Subsequently, IRS updated its anticipated closure date for the recommendation to July 2020. As part of our FY 2020 audit, we will continue to monitor IRS's progress in ensuring that its control testing methodology and results fully meet the intent of the control objectives being tested.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: During the audit of IRS's FY 2019 financial statements, the agency submitted this recommendation for closure, but our testing determined that it should remain open. While IRS continued to make positive steps to address our recommendation, the agency's implementation of corrective actions did not fully address it. As part of our FY 2020 audit, we will continue to monitor IRS's progress in strengthening its remedial action verification process and ensuring its corrective actions are fully implemented.
GAO-15-51, Nov 20, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, FSOC adopted final interpretive guidance that revises its approach to evaluating and determining whether to designate nonbank financial companies. The final revised guidance prioritizes an activities-based approach to identifying and addressing potential risks to financial stability and states that FSOC will pursue company-specific determinations only if the activities-based approach is not sufficient. The guidance further states that if FSOC does consider a company-specific determination, its evaluation will focus primarily on the first determination standard. The guidance does not indicate the establishment of procedures to evaluate companies under both determination standards for the purpose of comprehensively identifying and considering companies or to document why the other standard is not relevant. We will continue to monitor FSOC's implementation of the guidance and any additional actions that may be responsive to our recommendation.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
Status: Open
Comments: In December 2019, FSOC adopted final interpretive guidance that revises its approach to evaluating and determining whether to designate nonbank financial companies. The final revised guidance introduces a new stage 1 of the designation process in which FSOC would notify a nonbank financial company under review and consider available public and regulatory information. While the guidance states that a company under review in stage 1 may submit information it deems relevant to the evaluation, FSOC would not require the company to submit information during stage 1. We will continue to monitor FSOC's implementation of the revised guidance and any additional actions that may be responsive to our recommendation.
GAO-14-537, Sep 9, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA disagreed with our recommendation. Although VA agreed that census tract data was more precise than the county-level data NCA was using, the department disagreed that using this more precise data to make decisions would lead to different outcomes. Instead, VA believed that NCA's methodology of using county-level data was sufficient for estimating the number of served and unserved veterans. We disagree with VA's assertion that using more precise data to identify served and unserved veterans would have no effect on the outcome of VA's decisions about cemetery locations or prioritization. In 2019, VA officials provided new information that they make decisions on cemetery locations based in part on the projected, county-level veteran population 30 years in the future. VA officials expressed concern that there would be too much uncertainty trying to perform such long-term population projections at the census tract level. We believe VA's position has some basis, and therefore have removed the priority designation from our 2014 recommendation. However, as we reported in 2019 (GAO-19-121), we continue to maintain the validity of our recommendation and believe that comparing estimates of unserved veterans based on current census tract data with estimates based on current county-level data would provide a useful supplement to the VA's use of long-term projected county-level population data.
GAO-14-114, Feb 3, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-2834
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: FMCSA did not agree with our recommendation, disputing the methodology and conclusions in our report. However, we continue to believe that addressing Safety Measurement System (SMS) methodology limitations has merit and could help the agency better target FMCSA's resources to the carriers that pose the highest risk of crashing. For example, we found FMCSA requires a minimum level of information for a carrier to receive an SMS score; however, this requirement is not strong enough to produce sufficiently reliable scores. As a result, FMCSA identified many carriers as high risk that were not later involved in a crash, potentially causing FMCSA to miss opportunities to intervene with higher risk carriers. To fully implement this recommendation, FMCSA should revise SMS methodology to account for data limitations that limit comparisons so that the FMCSA is better positioned to identify and mitigate carriers that pose the greatest safety risks. FMCSA has recently developed and tested a new methodological approach that could potentially account for the limitations we identified. While FMCSA has not yet committed to deploying the new methodology, they hope to do so some time in 2020.
Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Comments: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) agreed with the basic principles that GAO addressed in this area, but disagreed with GAO's characterization of FMCSA's proposed Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) rule. In January 2016, FMCSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed a revised methodology for issuance of a safety fitness determination for motor carriers. Specifically, the new methodology would have determined when a motor carrier is not fit to operate commercial motor vehicles in or affecting interstate commerce based on the carrier's on-road safety data; an investigation; or a combination of both. However, in July 2018, in part due to a review of SMS by the National Academies of Science congressionally mandated evaluation of SMS, FMCSA announced that the enhancements previously proposed will not be completed.