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: "Financial analysis"
GAO-16-810, Sep 16, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4841
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: VA concurred with this recommendation and has made progress in finalizing the update to its acquisition regulations and manual. In August 2020, VA reported that 31 of the 41 parts in its new acquisition regulations had been issued as draft or final rules. The remainder are at an earlier stage of the rulemaking process. VA also stated that it remains on track to release the final VA Acquisition Regulations in April 2021.
GAO-16-700, Sep 7, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2016, GAO recommended that CMS improve the accessibility and reliability of SNF expenditure data, thereby making it easier for public stakeholders to locate and use the data. The agency concurred with this recommendation in 2016 and stated that it would review the feasibility of increasing the accessibility of this data. However, in August 2017, HHS told GAO that it now believes that the cost of implementing this recommendation would outweigh its benefits. HHS confirmed in July 2019 that its position on this recommendation has not changed. GAO continues to hold that data on SNFs' relative expenditures should be readily accessible to the public to ensure transparency in SNF expenditures.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: In September 2016, GAO recommended that CMS take steps to ensure the accuracy and completeness of SNF expenditure data. However, the agency did not concur with this recommendation. HHS reported in 2016 that the amount of time and resources to verify the accuracy and completeness of SNF expenditure data could be substantial, without assurance of benefit to the agency and the public. However, during the course of our work, GAO found that CMS uses this expenditure data to update overall SNF payment rates, in addition to more general purposes. GAO continues to believe that CMS should take steps to ensure reliable expenditure data are accurate and complete. As of July 2019, the agency continues to non-concur with this recommendation.
GAO-16-101, Mar 15, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-4523
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with GAO's March 2016 recommendation to enforce DOD's Real Property Inventory (RPI) Reporting Guidance to break out the annual rent plus other costs for each asset on the same lease to avoid overstating the costs associated with such leases. In July 2019, DOD provided GAO a copy of its annual guidance for end of year submission of its real property inventory, including notes and timeline for submission. DOD stated in its Corrective Action Plan that this annual guidance provided the requirements for proper submission of data to meet the issues identified in this recommendation. However, the documentation provided is generic language and does not provide any detailed information to support closure of this recommendation. In August 2020, we requested documentation that shows that the DOD has reiterated its RPI Reporting Guidance and that military departments and WHS have made the needed adjustments in the reporting of their leased facilities to show a breakout of the annual rent plus other costs for each asset on the same lease. We will continue to monitor this area and update this if DOD provides information showing that DOD has reiterated its RPI Reporting Guidance and that military departments and WHS have adjusted the reporting of their leased facilities to show a breakout of the annual rent plus other costs for each asset on the same lease. .
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with GAO's March 2016 recommendation. In its July 2019 Corrective Action Plan, DOD stated that it had coordinated with the Federal Protective Service (FPS) to obtain data pertaining to the 677 DOD facilities across 539 total locations (i.e., some locations have multiple tenants, hence more facilities than locations) for which FPS provides physical security. DOD stated that the data provided to them by FPS shows that, as of July 2018, 98 percent of DOD leased facilities met the established time frame for completing assessments and remaining 2 percent (15 of the 677 facilities) had out-of-date assessments. In January 2020, DOD provided GAO with the raw data it received from the Federal Protective Service that DOD said supported these assertions. While this data included the last and next facility assessment dates for each facility, along with several other variables, it did not include sufficient information for us to replicate DOD's analysis that 98 percent of assessments were completed in the 3 to 5 year period. We will continue to monitor this area and will update if DOD provides information that more fully explains DOD's analysis.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD did not concur with GAO's March 2016 recommendation to capture the total square footage assigned to each individual lease when multiple leases exist for a single building and make a corresponding change to its guidance to avoid overstating the total square footage assigned to each lease in RPAD. In its comments, DOD stated that it agreed that the issue we identified existed regarding multiple leases that are assigned the same building (leases managed by WHS in the National Capital Region), but that DOD did not agree with GAO's recommended solution to this issue. DOD stated that it believed that the underlying cause for overstating the total square footage for these records in RPAD was a data aggregation issue. DOD stated that its Data Analytics and Integration Support (DAIS) platform that was in the process of being developed would include the capability to capture square footage for multiple leases in a single asset. GAO is not wedded to a particular solution, only that the issue be resolved to improve the accuracy and completeness of the data. As of August 2020, DAIS is fully operational. We will continue to monitor this area and will update if DOD provides information to support that DIAS includes the total square footage assigned to individual leases when multiple leases are assigned to the same building.
GAO-16-175, Feb 25, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-8678
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: At least two bills have been introduced in the 115th Congress that would change the financial regulatory structure, to some degree, to address fragmented and overlapping regulatory authorities among agencies, as GAO suggested in February 2016. The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10) was introduced on April 26, 2017, passed the House in June 2017 and the Senate held hearings in July 2017. Among other things, the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 calls for the federal financial regulatory agencies to implement policies and procedures to minimize the duplication of effort with respect to enforcement actions. For example, it eliminates the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to supervise and examine financial institutions and also eliminates the regulatory and enforcement authority of the agency with respect to unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices by depository institutions. Such actions could help reduce fragmentation and overlap in the financial regulatory structure. In addition, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S.2155) was introduced on November 16, 2017 and passed in the Senate in March 2018. The bill, to some extent, may help address fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in the financial regulatory structure. For example, the bill helps to address fragmentation in insurance oversight by finding that the federal agencies and office involved in insurance regulation should achieve consensus with state insurance regulators when they participate in negotiations on insurance issues before any international forum of financial regulators or supervisors, and create an advisory committee to discuss and report on insurance policy issues including international issues. GAO will continue to monitor the reform efforts to determine the extent to which they could help to address fragmentation and overlap between the federal financial regulatory agencies and reduce opportunities for inefficiencies in the regulatory process and inconsistencies in how regulators conduct oversight activities over similar types of institutions, products, and risks.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: While some legislative action has been taken that may alter FSOC's authorities, it is not clear that the legislation would address GAO's February 2016 suggestion. The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10) was introduced on April 26, 2017, passed the House in June 2017, and the Senate held hearings in July 2017. The bill would change FSOC's authorities by repealing its authorities to designate non-bank financial institutions and financial market utilities (i.e., payment, clearing, and settlement systems) as "systemically important." In addition, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S.2155) was introduced on November 16, 2017 and passed in the Senate in March 2018. The bill may alter some of FSOC's authorities. However, it is unclear if these acts would alter FSOC's mission to better align it with its authorities to respond to systemic risk or addresses a gap in systemic risk mitigation mechanisms. Without legislative changes that would align FSOC's authorities with its mission, FSOC may lack the tools it needs to comprehensively address systemic risks that may emerge and a gap will continue to exist in the mechanisms for mitigating systemic risks. GAO will continue to monitor the reform efforts to determine the extent to which they help to align FSOC's authorities with its mission to respond to systemic risks.
Phone: (202) 512-3841
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has not taken action to implement this matter.
GAO-14-627, Jul 29, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) acknowledged that it lacks adequate data on state financing methods for overseeing compliance with a certain federal requirement related to the nonfederal share and that it will examine efforts to improve data collection toward this end. In November 2019, CMS issued a proposed rule that the agency said would promote state accountability, improve federal oversight, and strengthen fiscal integrity of the Medicaid program. The proposed rule would establish new policies and codify existing policies related to reporting the sources of funds used to finance the nonfederal share of Medicaid payments. For example, the proposed rule would require states to report, at the aggregate and provider level, contributions to the state or local governments used as a source of the nonfederal share for Medicaid supplemental payments. GAO will continue to monitor the status of the proposed rule, as well as review a final rule, if one is issued, to determine the extent to which it addresses the recommendation. GAO maintains it is important that CMS and federal policymakers have more complete information about how increasing federal costs are impacting the Medicaid program, including beneficiaries and the providers who serve them and plans to continue to monitor CMS's actions to help ensure that states report accurate and complete data on all sources of the nonfederal share.
GAO-14-535, Jun 16, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-6806
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: Treasury agreed with our recommendation but has not yet introduced this additional metric. In July 2019 we reached out to Treasury to obtain information on the status of this recommendation. As of October 2019, no new metric has been publicly introduced.
GAO-11-836, Sep 23, 2011
Phone: (202) 512-3000
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2017, HRSA withdrew proposed guidance that included further specificity on the definition of 340B patient in response to the new administration's January 20 memorandum directing agencies to withdraw regulations that were pending before the Office of Management and Budget but had not yet been published in the Federal Register. In March 2018, HRSA told GAO that it continues to assess next steps with the Administration on the proposed omnibus guidance, which included the patient definition. In June 2019, HRSA reported that it is still working with the Department to determine next steps for this recommendation. In July 2020, HRSA reported that it conducted an evaluation of its audit process and other program integrity efforts and determined that guidance does not provide the agency with appropriate enforcement capability. Therefore, HRSA is not pursing new guidance under the Program at this time. The FY 2021 President's Budget includes a proposal to provide HRSA comprehensive regulatory authority.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In January 2017, HRSA withdrew proposed guidance that included additional specificity regarding hospital eligibility in response to the new administration's January 20 memorandum directing agencies to withdraw regulations that were pending before the Office of Management and Budget but had not yet been published in the Federal Register. In March 2018, HRSA reported that it believes it is unable to implement this recommendation without additional legislative authority because the statute does not speak to the issue raised in the recommendation. HRSA also noted that the FY19 President's Budget includes a proposal to provide HRSA comprehensive regulatory authority, and that if this proposal is enacted, it could regulate on hospital eligibility. In June 2019, HRSA reported that it is still unable to implement this recommendation without additional legislative authority, though the President's FY 2020 Budget includes a proposal to provide HRSA with such authority. In July 2020, HRSA reported that it conducted an evaluation of its audit process and other program integrity efforts and determined that guidance does not provide the agency with appropriate enforcement capability. Therefore, HRSA is not pursing new guidance under the Program at this time. The FY 2021 President's Budget includes a proposal to provide HRSA comprehensive regulatory authority.
GAO-10-827R, Sep 14, 2010
Phone: (202)512-6794
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of October 2019, Congress had not acted on this matter for consideration.
GAO-10-455, Apr 12, 2010
Phone: (202)512-8509
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has taken no action on this matter.
GAO-09-976, Sep 30, 2009
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2017, IRS provided documentation of plans to periodically share with appropriate staff business rules information, along with related results of periodic evaluations of the business rules for the four highest-volume collection notices. In February 2018, IRS officials said that conducting the evaluations will depend on resources being available from the multiple functions involved. As of December 2019, IRS had not provided GAO with documentation of time frames for regularly sharing business rules information. We will update the status when IRS provides supporting documentation on actions taken, as we requested in December 2019.
Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2017, IRS provided documentation of plans to periodically evaluate the business rules for the four highest-volume collection notices and share evaluation results with appropriate staff. In February 2018, IRS officials said that conducting the evaluations will depend on resources being available from the multiple functions involved. As of December 2019, IRS had not provided GAO with documentation of any evaluation results or a date when IRS expects to complete the first such evaluation. Nor had IRS provided time frames for regularly conducting and sharing business rules evaluation results. We will update the status when IRS provides supporting documentation on actions taken, as we requested in December 2019.
GAO-09-483, May 12, 2009
Phone: (202)512-5837
Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 4, 2019, the revised Prime Broker letter has not been finalized. Staff from the Reg SHO team in SEC's Trading and Markets division stated that they have regularly and continuously asked the industry for comments on the Prime Broker Letter without receiving any real progress. Their most recent request for comments was emailed to industry counsel on May 22, 2019. Industry counsel acknowledged the request but have yet to provide comments.
GAO-09-146, Dec 12, 2008
Phone: (202) 512-5594
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has expanded IRS's math error authority in certain circumstances, but not as broadly as GAO suggested in February 2010. Section 208 of division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113 enacted in December 2015) gave IRS the authority to use math error authority if (1) a taxpayer claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, or the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) during the period in which a taxpayer is not permitted to claim such credit as a consequence of either having made a prior fraudulent or reckless claim; or (2) a taxpayer omitted information required to be reported because the taxpayer made prior improper claims of the Child Tax Credit or the AOTC. While expanding math error authority is consistent with what GAO suggested in February 2010, GAO maintains that a broader authorization of math error authority with appropriate controls would enable IRS to correct obvious noncompliance, would be less intrusive and burdensome to taxpayers than audits, and would potentially help taxpayers who underclaim tax benefits to which they are entitled. If Congress decides to extend broader math error authority to IRS, controls may be needed to ensure that this authority is used properly such as requiring IRS to report on its use of math error authority. The Administration also requested that Congress expand IRS's math error authority as part of the Service's Congressional Budget Justification and Annual Performance Report and Plan for fiscal year 2019. Specifically, the Administration requested authority to correct a taxpayer's return in the following circumstances: 1) the information provided by the taxpayer does not match the information contained in government databases; 2) the taxpayer has exceeded the lifetime limit for claiming a deduction or credit; or 3) the taxpayer has failed to include with his or her return certain documentation that is required by statute. As of April 2019, the Congress had not provided IRS with such authority.
Phone: (202)512-5837
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In April 2018, FEMA officials told us they had begun to redesign NFIP's risk rating system to help ensure policy rates better reflect the risk of flooding. The redesign, known as Risk Rating 2.0, includes efforts to use catastrophe models, stochastic approaches, and updated map information to better reflect the variation in flood risk. These reforms are also intended to improve how FEMA's rating process accounts for general and specific factors that affect flood probabilities and damage. While FEMA initially announced that new rates for all single-family homes would go into effect nationwide on October 1, 2020, it announced in November 2019 that it would defer implementation to October 1, 2021. FEMA said this would allow it to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the proposed rating structure so as to protect policyholders and minimize any unintentional negative effects of the transition, and that the new implementation date would cover all NFIP policies.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, FEMA officials said they had finished identifying properties with grandfathered premium rates and that they planned to analyze their economic implications as part of their efforts to update their premium rate setting approach, known as Risk Rating 2.0. FEMA plans to implement this redesign on October 1, 2021.
GAO-08-364, Feb 15, 2008
Phone: (202) 512-9039
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: No legislative action as of March 2020. GAO suggested in February 2008 that as Congress considers whether tax-exempt governmental bonds should be used for professional sports stadiums that are generally privately used, it also should consider whether other privately used facilities, including hotels and golf courses, should continue to be financed with such bonds. Reconsidering the tax-exempt status of certain bonds could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in additional federal revenue.
GAO-07-1014, Jul 13, 2007
Phone: (202)512-5594
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Comments: As of January 2020, Treasury has taken no action to address this recommendation and has not provided GAO with plans to do so. Treasury's tax gap strategy does not cover sole proprietor compliance in detail while coordinating it with broader tax gap reduction efforts as GAO recommended in July 2007. In March 2016, Treasury officials reported to GAO that they have implemented or proposed several actions to address the tax gap among sole proprietors, such as requiring reporting on payment card payments and improved audit selection procedures for sole proprietors. However, GAO's July 2007 report noted there are many trade offs involved in various options for improving sole proprietor compliance. GAO recommended that Treasury's strategy for reducing the tax gap include a segment on sole proprietor compliance that is coordinated with broader tax gap reduction efforts.
GAO-07-119, Dec 12, 2006
Phone: (202)512-9471
Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open
Comments: On May 24, 2017, the Department of Interior (DOI) sent out an email to its staff showing the dissemination of the new format required for completing trip reports by the staff of the Office of Insular Affairs (OIA). The new format requires staff to include travel justification (i.e., purpose/objective, location, and travel period) and trip report (i.e., meetings, site visits, results, and next steps, as applicable.) The intent of the recommendation is for DOI to have a framework that includes (1) status of required single audit reports; (2) the progress of actions to resolve reported internal control weaknesses; and (3) current needs for technical assistance, capacity building, and staff level expertise. Further, the intent of GAO's recommendation is that this information be integrated into a comprehensive monitoring process. We did not see these elements included in DOI's new format. At present, the agency has been unable to provide additional information that supports the development of a framework for conducting sites visits that incorporates procedures about how information will be shared and monitored. In August 2020, the agency informed us that it has taken additional corrective actions some time ago and is in the process of trying to locate the supporting documentation. We will continue to monitor the agency's actions to address this recommendation.