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: "Medical care evaluation"
GAO-20-536, Jul 14, 2020
Phone: (202) 512-8777
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. In July 2020, CBP's Office of Finance issued new guidance on how to execute the remaining funds CBP received in the 2019 Emergency Supplemental. In September 2020, the CBP Budget Directorate's Program Analysis Division also updated its standard operating procedures to describe how it will review samples of purchase requests for supplemental funds. To fully implement our recommendation, CBP should develop and implement guidance for ensuring all funds appropriated for specific purposes, including future appropriations CBP may receive, are obligated consistent with the purpose of the funds.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. In September 2020, the CBP Budget Directorate's Program Analysis Division updated its standard operating procedures to describe how it will review samples of purchase requests for supplemental funds. To fully implement our recommendation, CBP should establish and document oversight roles and responsibilities to ensure all funds appropriated for specific purposes, including regular appropriations, are obligated consistent with the purpose of the funds.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. We will continue to monitor DHS' efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. We will continue to monitor DHS' efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. We will continue to monitor DHS' efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. We will continue to monitor DHS' efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. We will continue to monitor DHS' efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. We will continue to monitor DHS' efforts to address this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Comments: DHS concurred with this recommendation and said it would take steps to implement it. We will continue to monitor DHS' efforts to address this recommendation.
GAO-16-820, Sep 21, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-3604
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has not addressed this recommendation. In response to a provision in Senate Report 115-125, we assessed DOD's interim and final draft responses to a requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 to assess the required number of wartime medical and dental personnel. In our ensuing February 2019 report, we found that DOD had not determined the required size and composition of its operational medical and dental personnel who support the wartime mission or submitted a complete report to Congress. Specifically, leaders from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) disagreed with the military departments' initial estimates of required personnel that were developed to report to Congress. OSD officials cited concerns that the departments had not applied assumptions for operating jointly in a deployed environment and for leveraging efficiencies among personnel and units. We found that the military departments applied different planning assumptions in estimating required personnel, such as the definition of "operational" requirements. Further, although not required by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD's assessment did not include civilian medical personnel. Until DOD completes such an analysis, it cannot be assured that its medical force is appropriately sized.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of August 2020, DOD has taken steps to address this recommendation, but has not completed all necessary actions. In February 2019, we reported that DOD had begun work on a metric to assess the clinical readiness of providers, but noted that the department's methodology was limited. In particular, the methodology did not provide complete, accurate, and consistent data or fully demonstrate results. Further, although DOD provided documentation in February 2020 outlining the medical specialties to which its clinical readiness metric would apply, it has not fully budgeted for the cost of implementing the metric. DOD's July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 notes steps taken to assess the accuracy of information concerning providers' workload, but does not address the time active-duty providers devote to military-specific responsibilities. Until DOD addresses these issues, its efforts to analyze the costs of medical force readiness and establish clinical currency standards will remain limited.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not yet addressed this recommendation.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020 DOD has not implemented this recommendation. In its July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD stated in response to this recommendation that facilities in several large Military Health System (MHS) markets are staffed in a multi-service manner. While this is an important point, it remains true that, as the report notes, DOD's model "assumed uniformed providers were interchangeable," and that such an approach does not reflect the single-service nature of most medical treatment facilities within the MHS. Until DOD's model reflects this, the results of its approach will continue to be limited.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has taken steps to address this recommendation, but has not completed all necessary actions. In its July 2018 report in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD included the sources of its data and some data limitations, but not efforts to test data reliability. Until DOD fully incorporates assessments of data reliability into its analysis of future changes to the Military Health System, such as its implementation plan Section 703, it will continue to lack assurance that its approach is fully supported by reliable information.
Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of September 2020, DOD has not addressed this recommendation. As we reported in May 2020, DOD's plan to restructure MTFs in response to Section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD concluded that civilian health care was more cost-effective than care in its MTFs without considering other assumptions that could affect its conclusions. For example, DOD applied assumptions about the cost of military personnel salaries, MTF workloads, and reimbursement rates for TRICARE that likely underestimated the cost-effectiveness of MTFs. Until DOD's approach to assessing changes to its network of MTFs is accompanied by cost estimates with an appropriate level of detail, all significant costs, and an assessment of the reliability of the data supporting the cost estimate, its approach will remain limited.