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: Appeals
GAO-17-234, Mar 23, 2017
Phone: (202) 512-7215
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred in principle with this recommendation. Moreover, since our March 2017 report, Congress passed the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, which required VA to develop a comprehensive appeals plan that included, among other things, descriptions of modifications to, cost estimates of and timelines for information technology that the agency needs to carry out appeals reform. However, more than a year after implementation of appeals reform, VA's February 2020 updated plan and FY 2021 budget request indicate that Caseflow has "minimal functionality", with many functionalities yet to be implemented. Further, VA's February 2020 updated plan and its FY 2021 budget request do not include specific steps or goals related to achieving overall functionality, integrated testing, or IT training for staff on new functionality still to be implemented in 2020 or beyond. While the VA's use of the agile process for IT development can help mitigate risks and avoid cost overruns and delays, VA's plans do not signal when Caseflow will support all of the Board's workflow needs for processing appeals under the new process. Such longer-term planning also could help ensure that all potential changes are anticipated in the plans of various VA components. For example, VA's February 2020 updated plan states that VHA cannot use Caseflow to efficiently and effectively manage its appeals workload. Longer-term planning could also ensure more transparency around additional resources needed to fully implement Caseflow versus other appeals-related technologies enterprise wide. We will consider closing this recommendation when VA has produced a longer-term plan for developing, implementing and integrating Caseflow functionality in support of a streamlined appeals process, including clear definitions of initial/minimal operating capability and full operational capability.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: VA concurred in principle with this recommendation. Moreover, since our March 2017 report, Congress passed the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, which required VA to produce a comprehensive appeals plan that required VA, among other things, to periodically publish a range of metrics, including timeliness, related to the processing of appeals under the new and legacy system. As of February 2019, VA implemented appeals reform; however VA has not indicated how it will assess whether or the extent to which the new process, which also allows for multiple appeal opportunities, will achieve final resolution of veterans' appeals sooner, on average, than the legacy process. We will consider closing this recommendation when the Board establishes timeliness goals for all new appeals options and VA has produced a plan for analyzing whether the new process is an improvement. Closure of this recommendation is related to recommendation 2 in GAO-18-352.
GAO-17-110, Nov 28, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-2717
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board
Status: Open
Comments: MSPB is finalizing finalized expanded guidance and procedures on coding whistleblower data. MSPB is committed to ensuring that procedures are in place for identifying and using appropriate whistleblower codes; however, MSPB is limited by its various legacy applications with regard to the improvements related to data entry that can be implemented at this time. MSPB currently is in the process of designing new core business applications that will incorporate appropriate data quality, integrity, and accountability measures to further improve its data management practices. Until the new case management system is in production in FY 2020 or early FY 2021, MSPB remains committed to utilizing the resources necessary to ensure the accuracy of its reported data. To achieve this objective, experienced attorneys reviewed, validated, and, where necessary, corrected agency whistleblowing data prior to public release in FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018. MSPB is committed to this extra layer of review for FY 2019, and will continue to evaluate how to achieve this objective given other workload and available resources. According to MSPB it expects additional progress on its efforts by July 2020.
Agency: Merit Systems Protection Board
Status: Open
Comments: MSPB stated that it completed drafting the data integrity study mentioned in our previous response, looking at the current processes and integrity of case-related data as a whole throughout the agency. As explained above and highlighted in MSPB's FY 2018 Annual Report, MSPB's initiative to design and configure new core business applications currently is underway, and the findings in the study are integral to incorporating the appropriate data integrity processes, including quality checks and controls, into these new applications. According to MSPB it expects additional progress on its efforts by July 2020.
GAO-16-667, Sep 8, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-6304
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, Congress has not yet considered if it plans to amend FOIA regarding the reporting of costs for defending lawsuits in which the plaintiffs prevailed.
Agency: Congress
Status: Open
Comments: As of February 2020, Congress has not yet considered if it plans to amend FOIA to require Justice to make changes to its Litigation and Compliance reports.
GAO-16-76, Apr 8, 2016
Phone: (202) 512-7114
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS is working to improve the accuracy of its calculation of coding intensity, as GAO recommended in April 2016. In October 2017, CMS officials told GAO that the agency is reevaluating the design of the risk adjustment data validation audits to ensure their rigor in the context of all the payment error data acquired since the original design of the audits. As part of this work, CMS officials told GAO that the agency will examine whether coding intensity is the best criterion to use to select contracts for audit. As a result, in October 2018, CMS told GAO that rather than coding intensity, it plans to implement a new methodology using payment error as the key sampling driver beginning with audits for payment year 2014. Additionally, CMS was taking steps to modernize its audit system to improve reliability. For example, it initiated a project to explore how to directly receive electronic medical record documentation. As of January 2020, the agency is continuing to reevaluate the design of these audits. Unless CMS takes this and other actions to improve the risk adjustment data validation contract-level audit process, it will fail to recover improper payments of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS is working to modify the selection of MA contracts for audit, as GAO recommended in April 2016. In October 2017, CMS officials told GAO that the initial RADV audit design was based on a limited set of payment error data available at the time. As part of efforts to improve the audits, CMS officials told GAO that the agency will examine whether coding intensity is the best criterion to select contracts for audit. In October 2018, CMS told GAO that it plans to implement a new methodology using payment error as the key sampling driver-rather than coding intensity-beginning with audits for payment year 2014. As of January 2020, the agency is using the revised methodology on the 2014 and 2015 payment year audits. They expect to conclude this process in late fiscal year 2020 and 2021, respectively. Unless CMS completes actions to improve the RADV contract-level audit process, it will fail to recover improper payments of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: HHS concurred with this recommendation in its fiscal year 2021 budget justification. HHS reaffirmed its commitment to identifying and correcting improper payments in the MA program. It has begun taking steps to improve the timeliness of the contract-level RADV audit process, such as aligning the time frames in CMS's contract-level RADV audits with those of the national RADV audits. Once completed, CMS needs to provide evidence that the actions taken by the agency have enhanced the timeliness of CMS's contract-level RADV process.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS is working to improve the timeliness of the agency's contract-level risk adjustment data validation appeals process, as GAO recommended in April 2016. In October 2017, CMS officials told GAO that the agency is actively considering options for expediting the appeals process. For example, CMS is considering the appropriate number of days for rendering reconsideration decisions while allowing for a complete and thorough adjudication. In December 2019, CMS officials told GAO they expect to issue a final rule in January 2021 that will establish uniform timelines to expedite the appeals process. Specifically, they plan to require that a findings determination be made within 60-90 days of an arbiter's receipt of each party's arguments at each stage of an appeal. Unless CMS takes such actions to improve the risk adjustment data validation contract-level audit process, it will fail to recover improper payments of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Comments: CMS has attempted to incorporate a recovery audit contractor in the Medicare Advantage program, as GAO recommended in April 2016. After failing to receive any proposals when CMS first issued a request for proposals (RFP) in 2014, CMS issued a request for information to industry in December 2015, which included a draft Statement of Work to solicit feedback, gauge interest, and conduct market research regarding CMS entering into a contract with a recovery audit contractor to identify underpayments and overpayments associated with diagnosis data submitted to CMS by Medicare Advantage Organizations. CMS reported that it subsequently issued another RFP in 2016 and did not receive any proposals for a second time. In December 2019, CMS officials told GAO that the functions of the Part C recovery Audit programs are being performed through other program integrity mechanisms. CMS subsequently reported in its fiscal year 2021 budget justification that CMS believes the proposed scope of the Part C RAC has been subsumed by RADV and CMS will demonstrate that the RADV program satisfies this recommendation. Until CMS completes efforts to improve the risk adjustment data validation contract-level audit process and demonstrates that it has satisfied the requirement to incorporate a recovery audit contractor in the MA program, CMS will fail to recover improper payments of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
GAO-15-582, Sep 1, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-6304
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with our recommendation and as of January 2020, is continuing to develop requirements for VBMS in order to develop functionality to replace legacy information systems. In addition, the department subsequently provided us with expected completion dates for implementation of claims and appeals processing, but has not provided a schedule for the implementation of pension claims processing. To fully implement this recommendation, the department needs to provide the expected completion date for pension claims processing and an estimate of the cost to complete remaining development and implementation of VBMS.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs
Status: Open
Comments: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) concurred with this recommendation and reiterated its plans and procedures for decreasing the incidences of defects in each system release. However, while the most recent VBMS release (i.e., May 2019) showed a decrease in the number of high- and medium-priority level defects, the release in February 2019 showed an increase in the number of high- and medium-priority defects. In addition, both the February 2019 and May 2019 releases showed the presence of the highest severity defects--critical--which have extensive user impact and workarounds do not exist. We will continue to monitor VA's actions and progress in response to this recommendation.
GAO-15-112, Jan 23, 2015
Phone: (202) 512-8777
including 1 priority recommendation
Agency: Department of Justice
Status: Open
Priority recommendation
Comments: In response to our report, in December 2016, Congress passed and the President signed the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-302, which, among other things, provides a means for FBI employees to obtain corrective action for retaliation for disclosures of wrongdoing made to supervisors and others in the employees' chain of command. Following this, the FBI worked closely with the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) to develop a training that clearly identifies to whom FBI employees may make protected disclosures. In addition, the FBI issued an aligned policy directive and two fact sheets detailing whistleblower rights. In October 2018, a DOJ official reported to us that the department was in the process of updating its regulations and, in February 2020, DOJ officials confirmed that the updated regulation was in the departmental clearance process but they could not provide an estimate for when it would be finalized. As a result, as of February 2020, DOJ's regulations have not been updated and are inconsistent with the current statute and FBI's guidance and training; as such, the problem of unclear or conflicting guidance to FBI employees still needs to be addressed. To address this recommendation, DOJ would need to update its regulations and ensure that all relevant guidance is clear and consistent across the department.