Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Health should specify in VHA policy that reviews of providers' clinical care after concerns have been raised should be documented, including retrospective and comprehensive reviews. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA agreed with the recommendation and indicated plans to revise policy to codify requirements to document reviews. As of April 2020, VA estimates completing these and other revisions to the policy in August 2020.

Recommendation: The Under Secretary for Health should specify in VHA policy a timeliness requirement for initiating reviews of providers' clinical care after a concern has been raised. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: VA agreed with the recommendation and indicated plans to revise policy to incorporate timeline expectations for initiating reviews after clinical care concerns have been raised. As of April 2020, VA estimates completing these and other revisions to the policy in August 2020.

Recommendation: The Undersecretary for Health should develop and implement a process to accurately count all physicians providing care at each medical center, including physicians who are not employed by VHA. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of January 2020, VHA continues to disagree with the recommendation and has not taken any action. Although VA responded to our report by stating that the ability to count physicians does not affect its ability to assess workload, we maintain that an accurate count of all physicians providing care at each medical center is necessary for accurate workforce planning. To implement the first recommendation, VHA needs to develop a system-wide process to collect information on all physicians providing care at VAMCs, including physicians that are not employed by VHA. This information should be available at the local level for workforce planning purposes.

Recommendation: The Undersecretary for Health should develop and issue guidance to the VAMCs on determining appropriate staffing levels for all mission-critical physician occupations. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: VHA concurred with this recommendation. In November 2017, VHA's Executive in Charge chartered the Specialty Care Provider Staffing and Network Model Workgroup to develop a methodology for determining the scope and complexity of specialty care services. The Workgroup also developed an analytical tool to support local decision-making around specialty staffing levels. According to VHA, the Specialty Care Services Staffing model has been validated across some VHA regions. The Workgroup was directed to develop an Executive Decision Memorandum for an official determination as to implementation of the model. As of January 2020, VHA was awaiting the results of the Governing Board's decision on the Executive Decision Memorandum, the guidance documents, and analytical template. VHA reported the target date for completion is March 2020.

Recommendation: The Undersecretary for Health should establish a system-wide method to share information about physician trainees to help fill vacancies across VAMCs. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration
Status: Open

Comments: VHA concurred with this recommendation. VHA is working to develop the necessary capacity to enable a system-wide method for sharing information about physician trainees to help fill vacancies. In April 2019, VHA anticipated having this system in place by the end of fiscal year 2019. However, VHA has not submitted any additional information since April 2019. VHA has also created a VHA-Trainee Recruitment and Hiring Workgroup (the Workgroup). The Workgroup serves as the advisory group on trainee recruitment and hiring, for the purpose of developing a permanent Trainee Recruitment and Hiring Function. The Workgroup is holding Virtual Trainee Recruitment Events for critical occupations. Until GAO sees evidence of a system-wide method for sharing information about physician trainees, this recommendation will remain open.

Recommendation: To ensure that the HVBP program accomplishes its goal to balance quality and efficiency and to ensure that it minimizes the payment of bonuses to hospitals with lower quality scores, the Administrator of CMS should revise the formula for the calculation of hospitals' total performance score or take other actions so that the efficiency score does not have a disproportionate effect on the total performance score.

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.

Recommendation: To ensure that the HVBP program accomplishes its goal to balance quality and efficiency and to ensure that it minimizes the payment of bonuses to hospitals with lower quality scores, the Administrator of CMS should revise the practice of proportional redistribution used to correct for missing domain scores so that it no longer facilitates the awarding of bonuses to hospitals with lower quality scores.

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.

Recommendation: To ensure efficient use of federal resources, the Administrator of CMS should account for Medicaid payments a hospital has received that offset uncompensated care costs when determining hospital uncompensated care costs for the purposes of making Medicare UC payments to individual hospitals.

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.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Health to monitor the full amount of time newly enrolled veterans wait to be seen by primary care providers, starting with the date veterans request they be contacted to schedule appointments. This could be accomplished, for example, by building on the data collection efforts currently being implemented under the "Welcome to VA" program.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In March 2016, GAO recommended that VA monitor the full amount of time newly enrolled veterans wait to be seen by primary care providers, starting with the date veterans request they be contacted to schedule appointments. VA concurred with this recommendation, and in June 2017, reported to GAO that it had taken actions to address it. Specifically, VA indicated that it revised an internal report to help identify and document all newly enrolled veterans and monitor their appointment request status. The report is intended to enable VHA and its medical centers to oversee the enrollment and appointment process by tracking the following timeframes: (1) application to enrollment, (2) enrollment to initial contact, (3) initial contact to primary care appointment, and (4) total time from application to primary care appointment. However, VA also indicated in its response that it did not have data that captures application dates for all newly enrolled veterans. As such, the report could not be used to consistently monitor the full amount of time these veterans wait to be seen by primary care providers. In January 2018, VA reported developing and implementing technical enhancements to its electronic systems that will enable it to capture the application date for all newly enrolled veterans. In April 2018 and December 2018, VA reported making continued efforts to implement technical enhancements to its electronic system. In its February 2020 update, VA identified several steps that the agency was completing to fully implement the revised internal report and noted that following a successful piloting of the report, the agency would implement it system-wide. VA reported that it expects to fully address this recommendation by October 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Army to implement processes to review and monitor the Army military treatment facility prescribing practices for medications discouraged under the PTSD guideline and address identified deviations.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that any policy that it may issue related to the monitoring of prescribing practices would be directed toward all of the military services. In May 2018 DOD stated that it planned to (1) conduct a comprehensive review of existing prescribing practices for the treatment of PTSD; (2) develop policy guidance for addressing prescribing practices for the management of PTSD that deviate from the clinical practice guideline; and (3) implement an automated dashboard that will flag medications that the PTSD guideline discourages from use. In its February 26, 2020 response, DOD stated that July 30, 2020 is the estimated completion date for these planned actions. To close this recommendation, DOD needs to implement its planned actions and provide documentation showing that the Department is monitoring medications discouraged from use under the PTSD guideline and addressing identified deviations.

Recommendation: To improve the effectiveness of its oversight of eligibility determinations, the Administrator of CMS should conduct reviews of federal Medicaid eligibility determinations to ascertain the accuracy of these determinations and institute corrective action plans where necessary.

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

Comments: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has taken some steps to improve the accuracy of Medicaid eligibility determinations, as GAO recommended in October 2015, but has not yet conducted a systematic review of federal eligibility determinations. In July 2017, HHS issued its final rule on the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) program, and stated that it would include reviews of federal eligibility determinations in states that have delegated that authority. In December 2017, HHS provided information noting that the first cycle of the revised PERM includes two states where there were federal eligibility determinations. However, as HHS confirmed in December 2019, the random sample of eligibility determinations reviewed in the first cycle of the revised PERM did not include any federal eligibility determinations. As such, the PERM has not systematically reviewed federal determinations, and we maintain that further reviews are needed to help ensure that only individuals eligible for Medicaid are receiving benefits. We will continue to monitor HHS to determine if HHS is ascertaining the accuracy of federal eligibility determinations and taking corrective action where necessary.

Recommendation: To determine the extent to which Medicare payments are aligned with costs for specific types of dialysis treatment and training, the Administrator of CMS should take steps to improve the reliability of the cost report data for treatment and training associated with specific types of dialysis.

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

Comments: As of February 2020, CMS has not implemented this recommendation. HHS agreed with this recommendation and stated in February 2020 that CMS was exploring ways to clarify the cost report instructions in an effort to improve the accuracy of the information submitted. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To ensure that patients with chronic kidney disease receive objective and timely education related to this condition, the Administrator of CMS should examine the Kidney Disease Education benefit and, if appropriate, seek legislation to revise the categories of providers and patients eligible for the benefit.

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

Comments: As of February 2020, CMS has not implemented this recommendation. HHS did not agree with this recommendation and stated in June 2016 that CMS continuously works to pay appropriately for ESRD services and must prioritize its activities to improve care for dialysis patients. While we acknowledge the need for CMS to prioritize its activities to improve dialysis care, it is important for CMS to help ensure that Medicare patients with chronic kidney disease understand their condition, how to manage it, and the implications of the various treatment options available, particularly given the central role of patient choice in dialysis care. The limited use of the Kidney Disease Education benefit that we noted in our report suggests that it may be difficult for Medicare patients to receive this education and underscores the need for CMS to examine and potentially revise the benefit. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To improve its oversight of network adequacy in MA, the Administrator of CMS should augment MA network adequacy criteria to address provider availability.

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

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation, and noted in a February 2018 update that CMS requires MAOs to identify provider availability in certain circumstances, such as in granting exceptions to the agency's network adequacy criteria. CMS also stated that it would consider augmenting MA network adequacy criteria to address provider availability in future years. However, CMS's 2018 MA network adequacy guidance stated that the agency does not currently consider provider availability when reviewing an organization's network adequacy, and this guidance was not updated in 2019. As a result, as of September 2019, agency officials have not implemented this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve its oversight of network adequacy in MA, the Administrator of CMS should verify provider information submitted by MAOs to ensure validity of the Health Services Delivery data.

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

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation, and noted in a February 2018 update that the agency has standardized existing protocols to ensure the validity of the Health Services Delivery data submitted by MAOs with regards to exceptions requests and partial county justifications. However, CMS's 2018 MA network adequacy guidance stated that MAOs remain responsible for conducting validation of Health Services Delivery data. Unless CMS verifies provider information submitted by MAOs, the agency cannot be confident that MAOs are meeting network adequacy criteria. As of September 2019, agency officials have not implemented this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve its oversight of network adequacy in MA, the Administrator of CMS should set minimum requirements for MAO letters notifying enrollees of provider terminations and require MAOs to submit sample letters to CMS for review.

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

Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation. In a September 2017 update, the agency stated that it had met the spirit of our recommendation by adding its best practice suggestions of what should be included in the written termination notice to the Medicare Managed Care Manual. However, as we noted in our report, those practices are not required, nor are the letters regularly reviewed. As of September 2019, agency officials have not yet implemented this recommendation.

Recommendation: To strengthen oversight of the individual shared responsibility and premium tax credit provisions, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should assess whether or not the data received from the health insurance marketplaces are sufficiently complete and accurate to enable effective correction of tax returns at-filing based on matching with the marketplace data and, if the assessment determines that such corrections would be effective, seek legislative authority to correct tax returns at-filing based on the marketplace data.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agreed with GAO's recommendation. IRS reports that the quality of data submitted by health insurance marketplaces has improved since the 2015 return filing season, and it continues to use its correspondence process for resolving discrepancies between marketplace data and that reported by the taxpayer after the return has been filed. IRS has not considered requesting legislative authority to correct tax returns at the time of filing based specifically on discrepancies between the data submitted by the health insurance marketplace and reported by the taxpayer. Agency officials believe that would be premature at this time. They noted that a broader legislative initiative has already been proposed that would grant IRS with correctable error authority in cases where the information provided by the taxpayer does not match the information contained in government databases. Should this broad authority be granted in the future, IRS will then consider how to approach correction of tax returns at the time of filing based on discrepancies with health insurance marketplace data. Such authority was also included in the Administration's 2021 budget.

Recommendation: To strengthen oversight of the individual shared responsibility and premium tax credit provisions, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should evaluate IRS efforts to collaborate and communicate with key external stakeholders to inform efforts related to implementation of the new 2015 PPACA requirements.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agreed with GAO's recommendation but has not yet initiated an evaluation of collaboration and communication efforts with external stakeholders. IRS currently utilizes informal feedback processes to share information and identify opportunities for improvement with external stakeholders in implementing the shared responsibility payment and premium tax credit provisions. We continue to encourage IRS to evaluate its collaboration and communication efforts, but such an evaluation has not yet happened. We will continue to monitor IRS efforts.

Recommendation: To improve CMS's oversight of Medicaid payments, the Administrator of CMS should take steps to ensure that states report accurate provider-specific payment data that include accurate unique national provider identifiers (NPI).

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

Comments: In November 2019, CMS issued a proposed rule that the agency said would promote state accountability, improve federal oversight, and strengthen the fiscal integrity of the Medicaid program. Among other things, the proposed rule would require states to report supplemental payments made to individual providers; furthermore, it would require states to include the National Provider Identifier (NPI) number-a unique 10-digit identification number assigned to health care providers. GAO will continue to monitor the status of the proposed rule and will review a final rule, if one is issued, to determine the extent it addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve CMS's oversight of Medicaid payments, the Administrator of CMS should develop a policy establishing criteria for when such payments at the provider level are economical and efficient.

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

Comments: In November 2019, CMS issued a proposed rule that the agency said would require states to demonstrate to CMS that supplemental payments to individual providers are economical and efficient and also require states to end and then seek CMS approval to renew supplemental payments every three years. GAO will monitor the status of the proposed rule and will review a final rule, if one is issued, to determine the extent to which it addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve CMS's oversight of Medicaid payments, the Administrator of CMS should, once criteria are developed, develop a process for identifying and reviewing payments to individual providers in order to determine whether they are economical and efficient.

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

Comments: In November 2019, CMS issued a proposed rule that the agency said would require states to demonstrate to CMS that supplemental payments to individual providers are economical and efficient and also require states to end and then seek CMS approval to renew supplemental payments every three years. GAO will monitor the status of the proposed rule and will review a final rule, if one is issued, to determine the extent to which it addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help the Department of Health and Human Services better control spending and encourage efficient delivery of care, Congress should consider requiring Medicare to pay PCHs as it pays PPS teaching hospitals, or provide the Secretary with the authority to otherwise modify how Medicare pays PCHs. To generate cost savings from any reduction in outpatient payments to PCHs, Congress should also provide that all forgone outpatient payment adjustment amounts be returned to the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund.

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.

Recommendation: To improve consumers' access to relevant and understandable information on the cost and quality of health care services, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to include in the CMS Compare websites, to the extent feasible, estimated out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries for common treatments that can be planned in advance.

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.

Recommendation: To improve consumers' access to relevant and understandable information on the cost and quality of health care services, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to organize cost and quality information in the CMS Compare websites to facilitate consumer identification of the highest-performing providers, such as by listing providers in order based on their performance.

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.

Recommendation: To improve consumers' access to relevant and understandable information on the cost and quality of health care services, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to include in the CMS Compare websites the capability for consumers to customize the information presented, to better focus on information relevant to them.

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.

Recommendation: To improve consumers' access to relevant and understandable information on the cost and quality of health care services, the Secretary of HHS should direct the Administrator of CMS to develop specific procedures and performance metrics to ensure that CMS's efforts to promote the development and use of its own and others' transparency tools adequately address the needs of consumers.

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.

Recommendation: To enhance its oversight of drug shortages, particularly as the agency fine-tunes the manner in which it gathers data on shortages and transitions from its database to a more robust system, the Commissioner of FDA should conduct periodic analyses using the existing drug shortages database (and, eventually, the new drug shortages information system) to routinely and systematically assess drug shortage information, and use this information proactively to identify risk factors for potential drug shortages early, thereby potentially helping FDA to recognize trends, clarify causes, and resolve problems before drugs go into short supply.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2018, FDA told us that it was using its drug shortage data system, the "Shortage Tracker," to summarize information reported by manufacturers as the reasons for existing shortages. The agency indicated that it was developing a model that would factor in drug shortage data, warning signs identified through social media, and other factors to help identify early indicators that may predict future shortages. In July 2019, the agency indicated it could conduct periodic analyses of the causes of drug shortages. However, FDA had not yet proactively conducted any rigorous analyses of predictors of drug shortages to help recognize trends, clarify causes, and resolve problems before drugs go into short supply. In an August 2020 written response, FDA reported that it was undertaking modeling efforts to explore the feasibility of predicting future drug shortages using machine learning approaches. FDA planned to complete the initial modeling by fall 2020, at which time it would identify next steps. The agency indicated that the recommendation should remain open, and GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that qualified CDRs promote improved quality and efficiency of physician care for Medicare beneficiaries, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct CMS to establish a requirement for qualified CDRs to demonstrate improvement on key measures of quality and efficiency for their target populations.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2019, HHS officials reported that they were implementing new requirements for qualified CDRs, but these requirements were not related to demonstrating improvement on the measures of quality and efficiency, as GAO recommended. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To help ensure that qualified CDRs promote improved quality and efficiency of physician care for Medicare beneficiaries, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should direct CMS to establish a process for monitoring compliance with requirements for qualified CDRs that draws on relevant expert judgment. This process should assess CDR performance on each requirement in a way that takes into account the varying circumstances of CDRs and their available opportunities to promote quality and efficiency improvement for their target populations.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 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.

Recommendation: To help ensure that qualified CDRs promote improved quality and efficiency of physician care for Medicare beneficiaries, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should determine and implement actions to reduce barriers to the development of qualified CDRs, such as (1) developing guidance that clarifies Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act requirements to promote participation in qualified CDRs; (2) working with private sector entities to make relevant multipayer cost data available to qualified CDRs; (3) testing one or more models of shared savings between Medicare and qualified CDRs that achieve reduced Medicare expenditures with improved quality of care, and (4) providing technical assistance to qualified CDRs.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2019, HHS officials have not informed us of any actions taken to implement this recommendation beyond providing limited technical assistance to qualified CDRs through monthly support calls and an annual kick-off meeting. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive additional information.

Recommendation: To help ensure that qualified CDRs promote improved quality and efficiency of physician care for Medicare beneficiaries, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should determine key data elements needed by qualified CDRs--such as those relevant for a required core set of measures--and direct Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and CMS to include these data elements, if feasible, in the requirements for certification of EHRs under the EHR incentive programs.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 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.

Recommendation: To increase beneficiaries' awareness of providers' financial interest in a particular treatment, 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.

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.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should insert a self-referral flag on its Medicare Part B claims form, require providers to indicate whether the 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.

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.

Recommendation: In order to improve CMS's ability to identify self-referred anatomic pathology services and help CMS avoid unnecessary increases in these services, the Administrator of CMS should insert a self-referral flag on Medicare Part B claim forms and require providers to indicate whether the anatomic pathology services for which the provider bills Medicare are self-referred or not.

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

Comments: In June 2013, we recommended that the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) insert a self-referral flag on Medicare Part B claim forms and require providers to indicate whether the anatomic pathology services for which the provider bills Medicare are self-referred or not. 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. Although CMS has taken initial steps relevant to self-referral, the steps do not require a provider to indicate whether anatomic pathology services billed to Medicare are self-referred or not. Specifically, CMS has noted that Section 6409(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act required the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, in cooperation with the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, to establish a Medicare self-referral disclosure protocol that sets forth a process to enable providers of services and suppliers to self-disclose actual or potential violations of the physician self-referral statute. However, the protocol is voluntary and specific to actual or potential violations regarding self-referral, which is not relevant to our recommendation. As of January 2020, CMS has not provided any additional information about actions it has taken to address our recommendation. We continue to believe that inserting a flag on Part B claims to indicate whether an anatomic pathology service is self-referred would improve CMS's ability to monitor self-referred services, which in turn may help them take action to avoid unnecessary increases in these services.

Recommendation: In order to improve CMS's ability to identify self-referred anatomic pathology services and help CMS avoid unnecessary increases in these services, the Administrator of CMS should determine and implement an approach to ensure the appropriateness of biopsy procedures performed by self-referring providers.

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

Comments: In June 2013, we recommended that the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implement an approach to ensure the appropriateness of biopsy procedures performed by self-referring providers. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did not concur with this recommendation and does not believe it would address overutilization that occurs as a result of self-referral. In November 2017, CMS officials noted that the agency does not have the ability to identify self-referred anatomic pathology services during medical reviews. As of January 2020, CMS has not provided any additional information about actions it has taken to address the recommendation. We continue to believe that it is important for CMS to monitor the self-referral of anatomic pathology services on an ongoing basis and determine if those services are inappropriate or unnecessary.

Recommendation: In order to improve CMS's ability to identify self-referred anatomic pathology services and help CMS avoid unnecessary increases in these services, the Administrator of CMS should develop and implement a payment approach for anatomic pathology services that would limit the financial incentives associated with referring a higher number of specimens--or anatomic pathology services--per biopsy procedure.

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

Comments: In June 2013, we recommended that the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) develop and implement a payment approach for anatomic pathology services under the Physician Fee Schedule that would limit the financial incentives associated with referring a higher number of specimens--anatomic pathology services--per biopsy procedure. Although health care providers have discretion in determining the number of tissue samples from biopsy procedures that become specimens (anatomic pathology services), CMS's current payment system under the Physician Fee Schedule provides a financial incentive for providers to refer more specimens per biopsy procedure. Specifically, CMS pays for each specimen that a provider submits to be analyzed. HHS indicated that it concurred with our recommendation and that it had addressed this recommendation by reducing payment for the most commonly furnished anatomic pathology service (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 88305) by approximately 30 percent in calendar year 2013. However, CMS's payment reduction did not change the financial incentive providers have to refer more specimens per biopsy procedure because they will still be paid separately for each specimen submitted. As of January 2020, CMS has not provided any additional information about actions it has taken to limit the financial incentives associated with referring a higher number of specimens. We continue to believe that CMS should develop a payment approach that addresses this incentive.

Recommendation: In order to improve CMS's ability to identify self-referred advanced imaging services and help CMS address the increases in these services, the Administrator of CMS should insert a self-referral flag on its Medicare Part B claims form and require providers to indicate whether the advanced imaging services for which a provider bills Medicare are self-referred or not.

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.

Recommendation: In order to improve CMS's ability to identify self-referred advanced imaging services and help CMS address the increases in these services, the Administrator of CMS should determine and implement a payment reduction for self-referred advanced imaging services to recognize efficiencies when the same provider refers and performs a service.

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.

Recommendation: In order to improve CMS's ability to identify self-referred advanced imaging services and help CMS address the increases in these services, the Administrator of CMS should determine and implement an approach to ensure the appropriateness of advanced imaging services referred by self-referring providers.

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.

Recommendation: As HHS implements its current and forthcoming efforts to make transparent price information available to consumers, HHS should determine the feasibility of making estimates of complete costs of health care services available to consumers through any of these efforts.

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.

Recommendation: As HHS implements its current and forthcoming efforts to make transparent price information available to consumers, HHS should determine, as appropriate, the next steps for making estimates of complete costs of health care services available to consumers.

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.

Recommendation: PPACA contained several important program integrity provisions for the 340B program, and additional steps can also ensure appropriate use of the program. Therefore, the Secretary of HHS should instruct the administrator of HRSA to finalize new, more specific guidance on the definition of a 340B patient.

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.

Recommendation: PPACA contained several important program integrity provisions for the 340B program, and additional steps can also ensure appropriate use of the program. Therefore, the Secretary of HHS should instruct the administrator of HRSA to issue guidance to further specify the criteria that hospitals that are not publicly owned or operated must meet to be eligible for the 340B program.

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.

Recommendation: To better understand the extent to which deployed DOD civilian employees have access to needed medical care, as appropriate, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Combatant Commander of U.S. Central Command to clarify the level of care that deployed DOD civilian employees can expect in theater, including their eligibility for routine care.

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. .

Recommendation: To ensure that savings are realized from the implementation of an MPPR or other policies that reflect efficiencies occurring when services are furnished together, Congress may wish to consider exempting these savings from budget neutrality.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: Congress has exempted savings from the implementation of multiple procedure payment reductions (MPPR) for certain diagnostic imaging and therapy services from the budget neutrality requirement, as GAO suggested in July 2009. However, as of January 2020, other policies that may result in a reduction in payments for the professional component for imaging services remained subject to budget neutrality; "savings" from these services are redistributed to other services and do not accrue to the Medicare program. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 revised the payment reduction for the professional component of multiple diagnostic imaging services from 25 percent to 5 percent beginning on January 1, 2017, and exempted the reduced expenditures attributable to this MPPR from the budget neutrality provision. MPPRs or other policies that may result in a reduction to payments for the technical component for diagnostic cardiovascular and ophthalmology services continue to be subject to budget neutrality for 2020. Unless Congress exempts from the budget neutrality requirement savings realized from the implementation of all MPPRs or other policies that reflect efficiencies occurring when services are furnished together, these savings will not accrue to the Medicare program.