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: "Hospital care services"
GAO-17-551, Jun 30, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS indicated that it would examine the formula used for calculating hospitals' total performance scores and consider revisions, which would be subject to notice and comment rulemaking. In September 2018, HHS indicated that it had been examining alternatives and considering revising the formula for the calculation of hospitals' total performance scores (TPS) consistent with relevant statutory guidance, and in a way to reduce the effect of the efficiency domain on the TPS. In the Fiscal Year 2019 Inpatient Prospective Payment System proposed rule, CMS proposed to remove the safety domain weighted at 25 percent of the TPS and, in connection, increase the weight of the clinical care domain from 25 percent to 50 percent, which was estimated to reduce the effect of the efficiency domain on the TPS. According to CMS, stakeholders were concerned about the safety domain removal and adverse impacts to rural and smaller hospitals due to increasing outcome measure relative weights. CMS indicated that it analyzed current data in the fall of 2018 and found a similar trend, where rural and small hospitals' payment would be adversely impacted from increasing outcome measure weights. CMS decided to keep measure weights to avoid adversely impacting rural and small hospitals. However, CMS did not take actions so that the efficiency score would not have a disproportionate effect on the total performance score and bonus payments to hospitals with lower quality scores. As of January 2020, the recommendation remains open.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: HHS indicated that it would explore alternatives to the practice of proportional redistribution, and any changes to the distribution of weights for missing domains would be evaluated for potential negative impacts and would be subject to notice and comment rulemaking. In September 2018, HHS indicated that it was exploring alternatives and considering revising the practice of proportional redistribution used to correct for missing domain scores while also being mindful of any potential unintended consequences. In the Fiscal Year 2019 Inpatient Prospective Payment System proposed rule, CMS proposed to remove the safety domain and, in connection, to require scores for the remaining three domains in order to calculate the total performance score, but CMS did not finalize the weighting revision. CMS reported that stakeholders were concerned about the safety domain removal and any adverse impact to rural and smaller hospitals due to increasing outcome measure relative weights. CMS reported that it analyzed data and found that rural and small hospitals' payment would be adversely impacted from changing proportional redistribution to assign greater relative weight to outcomes. As a result, CMS decided to keep proportional redistribution. However, CMS's actions did not revise the practice of proportional redistribution, and, as a result, the practice may continue to facilitate the awarding of bonuses to hospitals with lower quality scores. As of January 2020, the recommendation remains open.
GAO-16-568, Jun 30, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: No executive action taken as of March 2020. CMS initially agreed with GAO's June 2016 recommendation. However, in October 2018, and again in December 2019 , CMS indicated that it was reconsidering whether to offset Medicare Uncompensated Care (UC) payments by Medicaid's uncompensated care payments. CMS stated that because Medicare UC payments are distributed based on hospitals' relative (not actual) uncompensated care costs, it would not be appropriate to account for Medicaid payments that reduce hospital uncompensated care. However, in some states Medicaid payments reduce or even eliminate hospital uncompensated care costs, which can result in an inequitable distribution of payments. Because the total amount of Medicare UC payments is capped, not accounting for Medicaid payments will result in hospitals that have little or no uncompensated care costs receiving a higher proportion of Medicare UC payments than warranted, resulting in in less funding for hospitals that actually have uncompensated care costs. Implementing GAO's recommendation would ensure that Medicare UC payments are based on accurate levels of uncompensated care costs and result in CMS better targeting billions of dollars in Medicare UC payments to hospitals that do have with the most uncompensated care costs, while avoiding making payments to hospitals with little or no uncompensated care costs.
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-16-108, Feb 5, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 2 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: CMS issued a proposed rule in November 2019 that may address this issue. According to the agency, the rule will promote state accountability, improve federal oversight, and strengthen the fiscal integrity of Medicaid. Specifically, the agency said the rule would require states to report to CMS a comprehensive description of the methodology used to calculate the amount and distribution of supplemental payments and the provider metrics used to calculate payment amounts, such as Medicaid utilization or costs. We will assess the extent to which the final rule addresses our recommendation when it is issued.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: CMS issued a proposed rule in November 2019 that may address this issue. According to the agency, the rule will promote state accountability, improve federal oversight, and strengthen the fiscal integrity of Medicaid. Specifically, the proposed rule clarifies the agency policy that Medicaid payments may not be contingent on the availability of local funding, according to agency officials. We will assess the extent to which the final rule addresses our recommendation when it is issued.
GAO-15-442, Jun 5, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of June 2020, Congress had not acted on this Matter for Congressional Consideration.
GAO-15-199, Feb 20, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of March 2020, no legislative action had been identified that changes how PCHs are paid for inpatient services, as GAO suggested in February 2015. The 21st Century Cures Act-Pub. L. No. 114-255, ?16002, 130 Stat. 1033, 1325 (2016), enacted in December 2016-slightly reduces the additional payments to PCHs for outpatient services furnished on or after January 1, 2018, and returns savings to the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. However, the law does not substantively change how PCHs are paid for outpatient services, which differs from how Medicare pays PPS teaching hospitals. Until Medicare pays these cancer hospitals in a way that encourages greater efficiency, Medicare remains at risk for overspending.
GAO-15-11, Oct 20, 2014
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-13-525, Jul 19, 2013
Phone: (202) 512-7114
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2013, to increase beneficiaries' awareness of providers' financial interest in a particular treatment, we suggested that Congress should consider directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to require providers who self-refer IMRT services to disclose to their patients that they have a financial interest in the service. As of June 2020, Congress has not implemented this suggestion.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: In August 2013, we recommended that the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) insert a self-referral flag on its Medicare Part B claims form, require providers to indicate whether the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) service for which a provider bills Medicare is self-referred, and monitor the effects that self-referral has on costs and beneficiary treatment selection. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did not concur with this recommendation, noting that CMS does not believe that this recommendation will address overutilization that occurs as a result of self-referral, would be complex to administer, and may have unintended consequences. We continue to believe that such a flag on Part B claims would likely be the easiest and most cost-effective way for CMS to identify self-referred IMRT services and monitor the effects of self-referral. As of June 2020, CMS has not provided any additional information about actions it has taken to address this recommendation.
GAO-12-966, Sep 27, 2012
Phone: (202)512-7029
including 3 priority recommendations
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation. CMS believes that a new checkbox on the claim form identifying self-referral would be complex to administer and providers may not characterize referrals accurately. We continue to believe that such a flag on Part B claims would likely be the easiest and most cost-effective way for CMS to identify self-referred advanced imaging services and monitor the behavior of those providers who self-refer these services, even though the agency has no plans to take further action. As of January 2020, CMS continues to indicate it will not take additional actions to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation, noting that CMS did not believe that a payment reduction would address overutilization that occurs as a result of self-referral and that the agency's multiple procedure payment reduction policy for advanced imaging already captures efficiencies inherent in providing multiple advanced imaging services by the same physician. Further, CMS does not think a payment reduction for self-referred services would be effective. For example, the agency believes that providers in self-referring arrangements could avoid this reduction by having one provider refer an advanced imaging service while having another perform the service. Finally, CMS questioned whether implementing our recommendation would violate the Medicare statute prohibiting paying a differential by physician specialty for the same service. Our recommendation, however, refers to specific self-referral arrangements in which the same provider refers and performs an imaging service, and therefore would not be addressed by CMS's multiple procedure payment reduction policy. As noted in our report, this payment reduction would affect about 10 percent of advanced imaging services referred by self-referring providers. In addition, while CMS raised questions about whether implementing our recommendation would violate Medicare's prohibition on paying a differential by physician specialty for the same service, our report shows that self-referring providers generally referred more MRI and CT services, regardless of differences in specialties, and CMS did not indicate how this recommendation would implicate the prohibition on paying a differential by specialty. We continue to believe that CMS should determine and implement a payment reduction to recognize efficiencies for advanced imaging services referred and performed by the same provider. As of January 2020, the agency has no plans to take further action regarding this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS did not concur with this recommendation, according to its fiscal year 2021 budget justification. To fully implement this recommendation, CMS should determine and implement an approach to ensure the appropriateness of advanced imaging services referred by self-referring providers.
GAO-11-791, Sep 23, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3000
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: In May 2013, CMS released average inpatient hospital charge information for more than 3,000 hospitals that receive Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System payments for the 100 most frequently billed discharges using DRGs from FY2011 and corresponding average Medicare payments. Shortly thereafter CMS also released outpatient charges. In April 2014, CMS also released data on payments to physicians under Medicare part B. This represents an effort to provide price transparency, although these are not complete cost estimates according to our definition in this report. As of September 2015, we are awaiting an update from HHS on the status of this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Comments: As of September 2015, we are awaiting an update from HHS on the status of this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.
GAO-11-365, Mar 23, 2011
Phone: (202)512-7029
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS, as required by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA), delayed until 2024 when the bundled payment for dialysis care is expanded to cover oral-only ESRD drugs. Because PAMA requires CMS to use the most recent year of data available to implement this payment change, CMS has been unable to implement our recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation upon receipt of additional information from CMS.
GAO-11-163, Feb 10, 2011
Phone: (202)512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD has not implemented this recommendation. In July 2019, DOD officials responsible for policy concerning deployed civilians clarified that DOD policy states deployed civilians are eligible for medical care at the same level and scope as military personnel. However, as of November 2019 they were unable to confirm whether policy in U.S. Central Command reflects this requirement. .