Recommendation: To improve the use of warranties and guarantees in Navy shipbuilding, the Secretary of the Defense should direct the Secretary of the Navy, for future ship construction contracts, to determine whether or not a warranty as provided in the FAR, provides value and document the costs, benefits, and other factors used to make this decision. To inform this determination, the Navy should begin differentiating the government's and shipbuilder's responsibility for defects and track the costs to correct all defects after ship delivery.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation in February 2016 by committing to study policy changes with regard to warranties, but disagreed that additional cost data were needed to inform these decisions, and questioned whether warranties are suitable for ship acquisitions. In February 2017, a Navy-funded study found that the Navy had no policy to collect data, and that the little data available were not useful for determining when warranties are suitable. In response to the study, the Navy agreed that, by December 2017, it would make some policy and contractual changes to collect data, but it continued to maintain that warranties are likely not suitable for ship contracts. In January 2018, the Navy issued guidance to help contracting officers determine when and how to use a warranty or guarantee, but the Navy has collected only one warranty cost proposal from one shipbuilder for a contract for a single ship and, going forward, Navy officials stated that they do not have plans to systematically collect such data. In August 2019, we recommended in GAO-19-512 that the Navy collect warranty pricing on its new class of frigates, as the Navy initially did not include warranty pricing as part of its request for proposals for the ship class. However, as of August 2020, the Navy has not made meaningful efforts to gain pricing data for warranties and has stated that the department does not plan to take any further action. To fully implement this recommendation, the Navy needs to collect additional data in order to determine cases in which warranties could contribute to improvements in the cost and quality of Navy ships.

Recommendation: To improve VA's efforts to effectively complete the development and implementation of VBMS, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits and the Chief Information Officer to develop an updated plan for VBMS that includes (1) a schedule for when VBA intends to complete development and implementation of the system, including capabilities that fully support disability claims, pension claims, and appeals processing and (2) the estimated cost to complete development and implementation of the system.

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.

Recommendation: To improve VA's efforts to effectively complete the development and implementation of VBMS, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits and the Chief Information Officer to reduce the incidence of high- and medium-priority level defects that are present at the time of future VBMS releases.

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.

Recommendation: To ensure that the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service (DCPAS) and DOD components are determining LQA eligibility consistently with DOD's LQA Instruction, the DSSR, and OPM compensation claim decisions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to require the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy or DCPAS, as delegated, to monitor reviews of LQA eligibility determinations conducted by DOD components.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this action, and as of December 2019, had taken steps to improve oversight of LQA determinations by DOD components; however, it had not issued guidance that requires the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy or DCPAS to monitor reviews of LQA eligibility determinations by DOD components. At the direction of DCPAS, DOD components completed reviews and submitted reports of overseas allowances paid to a sampling of overseas employees for calendar years 2015, 2016, and 2017. According to DCPAS officials, in DOD's 2017 review of overseas allowances, one employee was identified as having erroneously received LQA. This number is lower than the three employees identified during the 2016 review and lower than the 11 employees identified in the 2015 review. Additionally, in September 2019, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy issued a memorandum requesting DOD components to complete a review of overseas allowances and differentials, including LQA, paid to overseas employees during calendar year 2018. In January 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued a memorandum that clarified LQA eligibility requirements as applied and interpreted in recent Office of Personnel Management compensation claim decisions and the Department of State Standardized Regulations. The memorandum also required components to screen relevant records and determine if there are any employees who are no longer eligible to receive LQA based on the compensation claim decisions and Department of State Standardized Regulations. Finally, according to DCPAS officials, in December 2019, DOD was revising DOD's LQA instruction to incorporate the new LQA guidance from the January 2018 memorandum. However, it is unclear whether the revised instruction once issued will require the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary or DCPAS to monitor the reviews conducted by DOD components to identify any potentially inconsistent eligibility determinations and ensure corrective action is taken, as was the intent of GAO's recommendation.

Recommendation: To better protect the retirement savings of individuals who change jobs, while retaining policies that provide 401(k) plans relief from maintaining small, inactive accounts, Congress should consider amending current law to repeal the provision that allows plans to disregard amounts attributable to rollovers when determining if a participant's plan balance is small enough to forcibly transfer it.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: There has been no congressional action as of March 2020. Although bipartisan legislation proposed in February 2018 discussed changes to the amount of vested savings that could be forced out of a 401(k) plan, it did not address whether or not the definition of vested savings for this purpose would continue to exclude rollovers. As we reported in GAO-15-73, rollover savings are always vested when they are transferred into a plan account. If Congress looks further at amending rules related to the threshold for forced distributions, and particularly if that threshold is raised, it bears consideration whether all of an individuals' vested savings--including rollover amounts--should be included in the calculation of that threshold.

Recommendation: To ensure that individuals have access to consolidated online information about their multiple 401(k) plan accounts, the Secretary of Labor should convene a taskforce to consider establishing a national pension registry. The taskforce could include industry professionals, plan sponsor representatives, consumer representatives, and relevant federal government stakeholders, such as representatives from Social Security Administration, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and Internal Revenue Service, who could identify areas to be addressed through the regulatory process, as well as those that may require legislative action.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of December 2019, the Department of Labor (DOL) has not allocated staff or other resources to look at convening a task force of stakeholders to consider the need for a national pension registry. The agency previously noted the PBGC's expansion of its registry of accounts left in closed defined benefit plans to include accounts in 401(k) plans. However, PBGC's expansion included only transfers from terminating 401(k) plans, not from active plans. In February 2018, bi-partisan legislation was proposed to create a national, online registry for much of Americans' retirement savings account information, particularly those accounts which might otherwise become lost. To create the proposed "Retirement Savings Lost and Found" or something similar would require coordinated regulatory action on the part of multiple agencies, which could only benefit from the initial work and findings of a pension registry task force. The need for access to consolidated online information about multiple 401(k) plan accounts is only growing. Therefore, we continue to recommend that DOL facilitate a task force of stakeholders to identify and discuss legal and other logistical issues critical to the potential creation of a national pension registry.

Recommendation: To ensure that 401(k) plan participants have timely and adequate information to keep track of all their workplace retirement accounts, the Social Security Administration's Acting Commissioner should make information on potential vested plan benefits more accessible to individuals before retirement. For example, the agency could consolidate information on potential vested benefits, currently sent in the Potential Private Retirement Benefit Information notice, with the information provided in the Social Security earnings and benefits statement.

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: SSA disagreed with this recommendation, but did seek legal guidance to determine if it is permissible to include a general statement encouraging potential beneficiaries to pursue any external pension benefits in its benefit Statement. SSA's Office of the General Counsel determined that it would be permissible as long as it includes information required by law and the information is accurate. However, as of March 2020, SSA continues to believe that adding such information would place SSA in a position to respond to issues or questions about ERISA and private pension plans, which SSA considers to be outside its mission and about which the agency has no firsthand legal or operational knowledge. While we appreciate SSA's concern about providing information or advice about private pension plans, the agency already has a procedure for responding to such inquiries. The agency's Notice of Potential Private Retirement Benefit Information directs recipients to contact DOL with any questions about private retirement savings. We would expect that any increase in individuals asking SSA about their retirement savings, which could result from making information on vested benefits more accessible, could be handled in the same way. SSA said it also believes that the current benefit Statement adequately covers the fact that people need other savings, pensions, and investments and the agency sends notices to people who may quality for other pensions. We welcome SSA's efforts to raise awareness about the role of private retirement savings in ensuring financial security and in to notify individuals of potential benefits. However, these efforts do not supplant the need for individuals to have early and ongoing access to complete information on their potential plan benefits. In February 2018, bipartisan members of Congress introduced legislation that would make this possible. The Retirement Savings Lost and Found Act of 2018 (S. 2474) would house SSA's data on potential private retirement benefits in a secure database, which would be searchable online by participants and beneficiaries prior to retirement. Whether the legislation is enacted or not, we continue to believe that SSA should work to make its valuable data on potential vested plan benefits more accessible to individuals before retirement.

Recommendation: To prevent forced-transfer IRA balances from decreasing due to the low returns of the investment options currently permitted under the Department of Labor's safe harbor regulation, the Secretary of Labor should expand the investment alternatives available. For example, the forced-transfer IRA safe harbor regulations could be revised to include investment options currently under the qualified default investment alternatives regulation applicable to automatic enrollment, and permit forced-transfer IRA providers to change the investments for IRAs already established.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, DOL had not taken action on this recommendation. In 2019, DOL noted that it was engaged more generally with a range of stakeholders on issues surrounding missing and unresponsive participants with the goal of helping plans to locate and pay retirement benefits to missing participants and beneficiaries. We continue to encourage DOL to expand the safe harbor for IRAs created for forced transfers to include investment alternatives more likely to preserve principal and even increase it over time, such as what is permitted for qualified default investment alternatives under the safe harbor for automatic enrollment.

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: Congress should consider granting Labor the additional authority it is seeking to access wage data to help verify claimants' reported income and help ensure the proper payment of benefits.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: No legislation introduced as of March 20120. The Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2015 (S. 2051, title V) was introduced in the 114th Congress. It would have allowed DOL to access wage data, as GAO suggested in April 2013, from the National Directory of New Hires to improve the integrity of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act program, among other actions. If similar legislation were introduced in the 116th Congress and enacted, this legislation could help to prevent and detect improper payments in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act program.

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: The Congress may wish to consider broadening IRS's ability to use math error authority (MEA), with appropriate safeguards against misuse of that authority.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: Congress has expanded IRS's math error authority in certain circumstances, but not as broadly as we suggested in February 2010. Section 208 of division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113 enacted in December 2015) gave IRS the authority to use math error authority if (1) a taxpayer claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, or the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) during the period in which a taxpayer is not permitted to claim such credit as a consequence of either having made a prior fraudulent or reckless claim; or (2) a taxpayer omitted information required to be reported because the taxpayer made prior improper claims of the Child Tax Credit or the AOTC. In addition, Congress expanded math error authority for the First-Time Homebuyer Credit in November 2009. While expanding math error authority is consistent with what we suggested in February 2010, we maintain that a broader authorization of math error authority with appropriate controls would enable IRS to correct obvious noncompliance, would be less intrusive and burdensome to taxpayers than audits, and would potentially help taxpayers who underclaim tax benefits to which they are entitled. If Congress decides to extend broader math error authority to IRS, controls may be needed to ensure that this authority is used properly such as requiring IRS to report on its use of math error authority. The Administration also requested that Congress expand IRS's math error authority as part of the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2021. Specifically, the Administration requested authority to correct a taxpayer's return in the following circumstances: 1) the information provided by the taxpayer does not match the information contained in government databases; 2) the taxpayer has exceeded the lifetime limit for claiming a deduction or credit; or 3) the taxpayer has failed to include with his or her return certain documentation that is required by statute. As of January 2020, the Congress had not provided IRS with such authority. We continue to believe that Congress should broaden IRS's math error authority with appropriate safeguards in order to help reduce the tax gap, which is the difference between tax amounts that taxpayers should have paid and what they actually paid .

Recommendation: Given the potential for improving compliance now and in the future, Congress may wish to provide IRS with the authority to use math error checks to identify and correct returns with ineligible (1) IRA "catch-up" contributions, and (2) contributions to traditional IRAs from taxpayers over age 70-1/2.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has expanded IRS's math error authority in certain circumstances, but not as broadly as GAO suggested in February 2010. Section 208 of division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113 enacted in December 2015) gave IRS the authority to use math error authority if (1) a taxpayer claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, or the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) during the period in which a taxpayer is not permitted to claim such credit as a consequence of either having made a prior fraudulent or reckless claim; or (2) a taxpayer omitted information required to be reported because the taxpayer made prior improper claims of the Child Tax Credit or the AOTC. While expanding math error authority is consistent with what GAO suggested in February 2010, GAO maintains that a broader authorization of math error authority with appropriate controls would enable IRS to correct obvious noncompliance, would be less intrusive and burdensome to taxpayers than audits, and would potentially help taxpayers who underclaim tax benefits to which they are entitled. If Congress decides to extend broader math error authority to IRS, controls may be needed to ensure that this authority is used properly such as requiring IRS to report on its use of math error authority. The Administration also requested that Congress expand IRS's math error authority as part of the Service's Congressional Budget Justification and Annual Performance Report and Plan for fiscal year 2019. Specifically, the Administration requested authority to correct a taxpayer's return in the following circumstances: 1) the information provided by the taxpayer does not match the information contained in government databases; 2) the taxpayer has exceeded the lifetime limit for claiming a deduction or credit; or 3) the taxpayer has failed to include with his or her return certain documentation that is required by statute. As of April 2019, the Congress had not provided IRS with such authority.