Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting , addresses how contracting officials using the LPTA process should apply the Section 813 criterion regarding procurement for goods that are predominantly expendable in nature, nontechnical, or have a short life expectancy or shelf life as revisions to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) are considered. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and issued supplemental guidance in September 2019. The guidance does not clarify what goods qualify as being predominantly expendable in nature, nontechnical, or have a short life expectancy or shelf life. It states contracting officers should check with the requiring activity to make this determination. However, since there is no clear definition of these terms, requiring activities will not have any better insight how to apply this criterion than contracting officers. We maintain that DOD needs to clarify how these terms should apply to goods..

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting addresses how contracting officials using the LPTA process should apply the Section 813 criterion regarding full life-cycle costs, including for operations and support as revisions to the DFARS are considered. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD agreed with this recommendation and issued supplemental guidance in September 2019. This guidance states it is up to the requiring activity to document that the lowest price reflects the full life cycle costs. However, through our work it was unclear to those we interviewed how to determine a full life cycle costs for services. The guidance cites DoD Instruction 4140.01, DoD Supply Chain Material Management Policy for further guidance on how to determine life cycle costs for services. This policy does not clarify how life cycle costs should be applied to services. We maintain that DOD needs to clarify how this requirement should be implemented by contracting officers as the guidance issued does not do this.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the AMS administrator to ensure that P&SP routinely conducts in-depth analysis of the transaction data that it collects. Such analysis could include but not be limited to examining competition levels in different areas of the country. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: USDA agreed that routine in-depth analysis of packer transaction data would enhance USDA's monitoring of the fed cattle market to ensure against discriminatory or anticompetitive practices. In April 2020, USDA officials said the agency has made progress to complete the in-depth analysis and regular monitoring of the transaction data it collects. We will continue to monitor USDA's progress.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Chief of Engineers and the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to systematically review data on municipal and industrial water storage agreements stored within the OMBIL system and correct errors, as appropriate, to ensure that the data are accurate and complete.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, based on information provided by the Corps, the agency has reviewed approximately half of the data and hopes to review the rest of the data by the end of June 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should direct the Chief of Engineers and the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to collect and analyze data on the length of time it takes to complete the reallocation process.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, the Corps is studying how data are captured in the OMBIL system to ensure the agency has a sustainable approach that can be used to collect and analyze data into the future. The Corps hopes to complete its actions on this recommendation by the end of December 2021.

Recommendation: To increase transparency and obtain information to better inform decisions on whether to investigate potentially unfair or deceptive practices in the air ambulance industry, the Secretary of Transportation should assess available federal and industry data and determine what further information could assist in the evaluation of future complaints or concerns regarding unfair or deceptive practices.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (the Act), signed into law on October 5, 2018, directed the establishment of an Air Ambulance and Patient Billing (AAPB) Advisory Committee. The Act also required the committee to make recommendations on a variety of topics, including what additional data from air ambulance providers and other sources should be collected by DOT to improve its understanding of the industry. On September 12, 2019, DOT announced the formation of the AAPB Advisory Committee, including the appointment of 13 members. The first meeting of the AAPB Advisory Committee was held in January 2020. Soon after this meeting, three subcommittees were established, including one on Disclosure and Distinction of Charges and Coverage for Air Ambulance Services and another on Prevention of Balance Billing. Subcommittee meetings began in March 2020, although given the impact of COVID-19, the subcommittee meets scheduled for April and May 2020 were postponed. Pursuant to the Act, the AAPB Advisory Committee is to submit a report containing its recommendations not later than 180 days after the date of its first meeting. GAO will continue to monitor the work of the AAPB Advisory Committee related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To increase transparency and obtain information to better inform decisions on whether to investigate potentially unfair or deceptive practices in the air ambulance industry, the Secretary of Transportation should consider consumer disclosure requirements for air ambulance providers, which could include information such as established prices charged, business model and entity that establishes prices, and extent of contracting with insurance.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (the Act), signed into law on October 5, 2018, directed the establishment of an Air Ambulance and Patient Billing (AAPB) Advisory Committee. The Act also required the committee to make recommendations on a variety of topics, including the recommendations from this GAO report. On September 12, 2019, DOT announced the formation of the AAPB Advisory Committee, including the appointment of 13 members. The first meeting of the AAPB Advisory Committee was held in January 2020. Soon after this meeting, three subcommittees were established, including one on Disclosure and Distinction of Charges and Coverage for Air Ambulance Services and another on Prevention of Balance Billing. Subcommittee meetings began in March 2020, although given the impact of COVID-19, the subcommittee meets scheduled for April and May 2020 were postponed. Pursuant to the Act, the AAPB Advisory Committee is to submit a report containing its recommendations not later than 180 days after the date of its first meeting. GAO will continue to monitor the work of the AAPB Advisory Committee related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should evaluate the possible costs and savings of using disposable devices that could potentially substitute for DME, including options for benefit categories and payment methodologies that could be used to cover these substitutes, and, if appropriate, seek legislative authority to cover these devices.

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

Comments: In March 2019, HHS included in its fiscal year 2020 budget a legislative proposal to extend Medicare coverage to disposable devices that could potentially substitute for DME in treating and managing diabetes. As of March 2020, CMS has not provided documentation of the evaluation of possible costs and savings that we recommended and that we believe underpins the legislative proposal. We will review this documentation once provided.

Recommendation: To ensure the transparency and accountability of USDA's selection of countries to receive in-kind food aid, the Secretary of Agriculture should develop guidance to require documentation of the reasons for providing funding to countries that were not on the priority list.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation. As of February 2020, USDA has not developed guidance to require documentation of the reasons for providing funding to countries that were not on the priority list. In November 2019, USDA officials notified GAO that the responsible USDA office had reorganized, which has caused a delay in their response.

Recommendation: To help ensure that, consistent with the Bellmon amendment, the provision of U.S. in-kind food aid does not result in a substantial disincentive to, or interference with, domestic production or marketing in countries receiving in-kind food aid, the Secretary of Agriculture should monitor markets during implementation of McGovern-Dole projects to identify any potential negative effects, such as unusual changes in prices.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation. USDA reported that proposed McGovern-Dole commodities are selected in coordination with the host governments in order to ensure they will not disrupt local production, markets, or food prices. However, as of February 2020, USDA has not taken action to monitor markets during implementation of McGovern-Dole projects to identify whether any potential negative effects have occurred, such as disruptions of local production or unusual changes in food prices. In November 2019, USDA officials notified GAO that the responsible USDA office had reorganized, which has caused a delay in their response.

Recommendation: To help ensure that, consistent with the Bellmon amendment, the provision of U.S. in-kind food aid does not result in a substantial disincentive to, or interference with, domestic production or marketing in countries receiving in-kind food aid, the Secretary of Agriculture should evaluate markets after the completion of McGovern-Dole and Food for Progress projects to determine whether markets were negatively affected during project implementation or after project completion.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The agency agreed with our recommendation, and has reported actions to address the recommendation. GAO has requested documentation from USDA to confirm the actions taken. As of February 2020, USDA has not provided documentation confirming actions taken. In November 2019, USDA officials notified GAO that the responsible USDA office had reorganized, which has caused a delay in their response.

Recommendation: To minimize unnecessary overlap and duplication and more efficiently use DOD's U.S. distribution centers, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (or the subsequent Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment), in conjunction with the Director of DLA, and the Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, to assess and direct the implementation of actions, as appropriate, that can be taken using existing authorities to close, realign, or dispose of existing infrastructure.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. DOD began reviewing its secondary item inventory warehousing in July 2017 to consolidate underused distribution centers. In February 2018, DOD officials stated that the department will conduct three site studies by fiscal year 2019 to assess the viability and any potential savings from consolidation at these locations. In April 2019, DOD officials stated that the site studies had been completed and they anticipate a final report in late May 2019.

Recommendation: To improve operational efficiencies and reduce costs related to product management and services that support commissary operations, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Chief Executive Officer of DeCA to conduct comprehensive cost-benefit analyses to guide decisions on implementing the most cost-effective option as stocking and custodial services contracts are renewed, and on choosing product distribution options.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) agreed with GAO's March 2017 recommendation that it conduct comprehensive cost-benefit analyses to guide decisions on implementing the most cost-effective option as stocking and custodial services contracts are renewed, and on choosing product distribution options. For example, according to Department of Defense (DOD) officials, DeCA conducted a cost-benefit analysis as part of renewing an agreement with one of the Navy Exchanges in May 2018 and will provide service on a reimbursable basis instead of using the commercial vendor. DeCA officials stated that they will also review product distribution options during commercial negotiations, including taking into account product sales and shipment requirements, among other things. As of January 2020, DOD has not provided documentation to confirm completed actions to implement our recommendations. When we confirm what actions DOD has taken, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To determine the suitability of Medicare's Part B drug payment rate methodology for drugs with coupon programs, Congress should consider (1) granting CMS the authority to collect data from drug manufacturers on coupon discounts for Part B drugs paid based on ASP, and (2) requiring the agency to periodically collect these data and report on the implications that coupon programs may have for this methodology.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, Congress had not passed legislation to address this Matter for Congressional Consideration. We will update the status of this Matter if such action occurs.

Recommendation: To improve risk management in the collection of AD/CV duties and to identify new or changing risks, CBP should regularly conduct a comprehensive risk analysis that assesses both the likelihood and the significance of risk factors related to AD/CV duty collection. For example, CBP could construct statistical models that explore the associations between potential risk factors and both the probability of nonpayment and the size of nonpayment when it occurs.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of December 2019, CBP was taking steps to conduct the type of risk analysis GAO recommended in July 2016. In November 2019 we reported that according to CBP , the agency had developed and successfully tested two models using risk factors including, but not limited to, the type of good, country of origin of the good, and whether the importer is from a foreign country. One test demonstrated that, using data from fiscal years 2007-2015, CBP could have predicted over 95 percent of the importers with delinquent antidumping and countervailing (AD/CV) duty bills in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. CBP requested $17 million in fiscal year 2020 funds to make updates to its information systems necessary to facilitate the implementation of statistical models. CBP is also working on long-term enhancements to the models that it says will leverage additional modeling techniques, such as social network and spatial analysis. Regularly conducting a comprehensive risk analysis of factors related to AD/CV duty non-collection could enhance CBP's capacity to collect additional revenue by enabling CBP to increase bonding amounts for continuous entry and single-transaction bonds for importers with a greater risk of nonpayment. In a December 2019 Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee report, CBP said that it planned to begin rolling out a risk-based bonding framework in March 2020. The new framework relies on a bond formula that is in part based on risk factors identified by the statistical models .

Recommendation: To improve risk management in the collection of AD/CV duties, CBP should, consistent with U.S. law and international obligations, take steps to use its data and risk assessment strategically to mitigate AD/CV duty nonpayment, such as by using predictive risk analysis to identify entries that pose heightened risk and taking appropriate action to mitigate the risk.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Customs and Border Protection
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of December 2019, CBP was taking steps to develop a risk-based AD/CV bonding framework to use in conjunction with the development of an AD/CV risk assessment model. CBP is developing a supplemental AD/CV duty continuous entry bond that incorporates nonpayment risk factors identified in its statistical models and has worked with Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) to test the proposed risk based bonding formula by applying it to historical data. CBP has estimated that the collection rate under the risk-based bonding framework using the proposed formula would have been significantly higher than the collection rate under its existing bond policies during fiscal years 2007-2017, both in number and value of the bills collected; however, COAC members said the proposed bond formula would have resulted in overinsurance, which could increase cost to importers. The use of supplemental continuous entry bonds may require regulatory changes and modifications to CBP's database. CBP has also conducted an analysis of the use of single-transaction bonds using historical data, and found that this procedure would have allowed CBP to collect significantly more revenue in fiscal years 2007-2018. CBP is working with COAC members to test a risk-based application of single-transaction bonds to historical AD/CV duty entries to assess whether the bond would have reduced the amount of uncollected duties. In a December 2019 Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee report, CBP said that it plans to rolls out its risk-based bonding framework in March 2020.

Recommendation: To reduce the cost of the crop insurance program and achieve budgetary savings for deficit reduction or other purposes, Congress should consider reducing premium subsidies for the highest income participants.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, Congress has not acted on this matter.

Recommendation: To better protect plan sponsors and participants who use managed account services, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for the EBSA to consider the fiduciary status of managed account providers when they offer services on an opt-in basis and, if necessary, make regulatory changes or provide guidance to address any issues.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL concurred with this recommendation and agreed to review existing guidance and consider whether additional guidance is needed in light of the various business models we described. On April 8, 2016, DOL issued a final rule that clarified that anyone providing advice that is individualized or specifically directed to a participant pertaining to a decision to take, or refrain from taking, a distribution from the plan is a fiduciary. According to DOL, this final rule will better protect plan participants by requiring service providers who provide investment advice to act in their clients' best interest, preventing the erosion of their retirement savings by fees and substandard performance attributable to conflicts of interest. In 2018, a court ruling vacated this regulation; there is legal uncertainty surrounding the regulation and its effect regarding fiduciary duties,

Recommendation: To help sponsors who offer managed account services or who are considering doing so better protect their 401(k) plan participants, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to require plan sponsors to request from record keepers more than one managed account provider option, and notify the Department of Labor if record keepers fail to do so.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with a regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant-directed individual account plans. However, in Spring 2017, DOL removed this project as an active project on its regulatory agenda. GAO believes requiring plan sponsors to ask for more than one choice of a provider may be an effective method of broadening plan sponsors' choices of managed account providers. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help sponsors and participants more effectively assess the performance of managed accounts, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to amend participant disclosure regulations to require that sponsors furnish standardized performance and benchmarking information to participants. To accomplish this, EBSA could promulgate regulations that would require sponsors who offer managed account services to provide their participants with standardized performance and benchmarking information on managed accounts. For example, sponsors could periodically furnish each managed account participant with the aggregate performance of participants' managed account portfolios and returns for broad-based securities market indexes and applicable customized benchmarks, based on those benchmarks provided for the plan's designated investment alternatives.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with (1) its regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant directed individual account plans and (2) open proposed rulemaking project involving the qualified default investment alternative and participant-level fee disclosure regulations. In Spring 2017, the project on brokerage windows was removed as an active project on DOL's regulatory agenda, and the project on qualified default investment alternatives was moved to the long-term action category. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help sponsors and participants more effectively assess the performance of managed accounts, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to amend service provider disclosure regulations to require that providers furnish standardized performance and benchmarking information to sponsors. To accomplish this, EBSA could promulgate regulations that would require service providers to disclose to sponsors standardized performance and benchmarking information on managed accounts. For example, providers could, prior to selection and periodically thereafter, as applicable, furnish sponsors with aggregated returns for generalized conservative, moderate, and aggressive portfolios, actual managed account portfolio returns for each of the sponsor's participants, and returns for broad-based securities market indexes and applicable customized benchmarks, based on those benchmarks provided for the plan's designated investment alternatives.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with (1) its regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant directed individual account plans and (2) open proposed rulemaking project involving the qualified default investment alternative and participant-level fee disclosure regulations. In Spring 2017, the project on brokerage windows was removed as an active project on DOL's regulatory agenda, and the project on qualified default investment alternatives was moved to the long-term action category of DOL's regulatory agenda. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: To help sponsors who offer managed account services or who are considering doing so better protect their 401(k) plan participants, the Secretary of Labor should direct the Assistant Secretary for EBSA to provide guidance to plan sponsors for selecting and overseeing managed account providers that addresses: (1) the importance of considering multiple providers when choosing a managed account provider, (2) factors to consider when offering managed accounts as a Qualified Default Investment Alternative or on an opt-in basis, and (3) approaches for evaluating the services of managed account providers.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed to consider this recommendation in connection with a regulatory project on standards for brokerage windows in participant-directed individual account plans. However, in Spring 2017, DOL removed this project as an active project on its regulatory agenda. GAO continues to believe that plan sponsors would benefit from additional guidance for selecting and overseeing managed account providers. In April 2018, DOL reported that it was not able to allocate staff time and resources to this recommendation and does not yet have a specific timeline for any next action.

Recommendation: As DOL continues to review regulatory barriers to lifetime income options for 401(k) plan participants it should consider other countries' approaches to plans offering annuities, such as their reliance on existing solvency requirements and insurance industry standards to provide assurances rather than place responsibility on plan sponsors to make an assessment of an annuity provider's financial stability. As DOL considers the approaches of other countries and continues to work with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which facilitates interactions between insurance companies and state insurance regulators, DOL may wish to consult with the Federal Insurance Office, which coordinates federal efforts on prudential aspects of international insurance matters.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL worked with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in 2013 and 2014 to consider possible options for easing plan sponsor concerns about the requirement to assess the financial solvency of annuity providers. DOL reported they will continue to work with NAIC, as well as the National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations and Treasury's Federal Insurance Office as they consider potential regulatory approaches in this area. DOL also worked with the Federal Insurance Office in developing guidance on the selection and monitoring of annuity providers under the current annuity selection safe harbor regulation. In October 2017, Treasury recommended DOL work with Treasury to develop proposals on how establish or certify one or more expert, independent fiduciary entities to assess the long-term financial strength of annuity providers. Plan sponsors could use these assessments as a safe harbor in selecting annuity providers for their plan. As of 2017, DOL continued to cite its other regulatory and guidance priorities as taking precedence. In April 2018, DOL reported that in the development and clearance of the Spring 2018 regulatory agenda, the agency decided to continue to classify this project as a long-term action. We commend DOL's efforts on a more workable safe harbor, but continue to encourage DOL to review alternative approaches taken by other countries, such as their reliance on existing solvency requirements and insurance standards, which can ease the burden on plan sponsors.

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 address USPS's financial viability in the short term, Congress may wish to consider providing financial relief to USPS, including modifying its retiree health benefit cost structure in a fiscally responsible manner. Congress may also wish to consider any and all options available to reduce USPS costs, including revising the statutory framework for collective bargaining to ensure that binding arbitration takes its financial condition into account. At the same time, to facilitate making progress in difficult areas, Congress may wish to consider establishing (1) a panel of independent experts, similar to a BRAC-like commission, to coordinate with USPS and stakeholders to develop a package of proposed legislative and operational changes needed to reduce costs and address challenges to USPS's business model and (2) procedures for the review and approval of these proposals by the President and Congress. These proposals could focus on adapting delivery and retail services to declining mail volumes; making postal operations, networks, and workforce more cost-efficient; and generating new revenue.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has taken no action on this matter.