Recommendation: The Director of OMB should clarify and document OMB's procedure for changing official data definition standards for DATA Act reporting, for example, by explicitly describing how change procedures developed for other government-wide initiatives apply to DATA Act definition standards in a public source of guidance or information. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB has taken steps to restructure the federal data ecosystem, including issuing government-wide guidance covering all federal data and creating a Business Standards Council. However, given the complexity of recent changes, OMB needs to explicitly and publicly describe how those changes-developed in the context of other government-wide initiatives-apply to DATA Act data element definitions.

Recommendation: The Director of OMB should ensure that the June 2018 policy changes regarding DATA Act data definition standards are clearly identified and explained in the official repository or another authoritative public source of DATA Act standards and guidance, such as by including a revision history along with the current version of the definitions. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, OMB staff cited its Federal Spending Transparency Data Standards website and specifically notations on that site regarding the dates of revisions made to those standards as being responsive to this recommendation. However, the specific notations cited by OMB only show changes made back in 2015 and do not reflect nor explain some of the more recent revisions that led to GAO making this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of DOT's Office of Aviation Analysis should provide periodic external reporting, at a time interval DOT determines appropriate, to the public and policymakers, on the effects of antitrust immunity—based on the range of monitoring activities undertaken by DOT—including whether grants of immunity have achieved anticipated benefits and the status of remedies—such as airport slot divestitures—imposed as part of DOT's approval. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Transportation: Office of Aviation Analysis
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, DOT provided information on updates to how research and other information on antitrust immunity is shared on its web site. We are reviewing this information to determine if it is sufficient to close the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision should revise Large Bank Supervisions policy to require documentation of examination teams internal deliberations that lead to consequential decisions for the bank, such as the decision whether to issue a Matter Requiring Attention, among others. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and stated that it neither has taken nor plans to take any actions to address it. We maintain that consistently documenting internal deliberations that lead to consequential decisions for the bank could increase the transparency and accountability of examination teams' findings and decisions.

Recommendation: The Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision should revise Large Bank Supervisions policy to require that bank examination teams retain drafts of key documents, including the conclusion memorandum and supervisory letter, that record the supervisory review process. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and stated that it neither has taken nor plans to take any actions to address it. We maintain that revising the policy to ensure that drafts of key documents are not deleted will help OCC increase the transparency and accountability of the supervisory review process.

Recommendation: The Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision should revise Large Bank Supervisions policy to require documentation of communications with banks, including those between executive and senior management and banks, that inform supervisory decisions. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and stated that it neither has taken nor plans to take any actions to address it. We maintain that having meeting minutes and other documentation of key communications would provide OCC with a more complete and transparent record of the information banks provide to examiners and how that information impacts supervisory decisions.

Recommendation: The Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision should systematically track and monitor Large Bank Supervisions use of informal recommendations. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and stated that it neither has taken nor plans to take any actions to address it. We maintain that tracking and monitoring the use of informal recommendations could increase transparency of the supervisory process, which could help Large Bank Supervision mitigate the risk of regulatory capture.

Recommendation: The Chief Counsel should develop a policy for Large Bank Supervision (1) to check employees active conflicts of interests during the staffing process for examinations and other supervisory activities and (2) to document the results of this check. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020,, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and does not plan to develop a policy to check if employees have active conflicts of interest during the staffing process for examinations and other supervisory activities. OCC noted in its December 2018 response letter to the report that they believed such a policy would shift the responsibility for ensuring compliance with recusal requirements from employees to those responsible for staffing. We maintain that this recommendation does not aim to alleviate the personal responsibility all employees have to comply with recusal requirements. Rather, our recommendation aims to strengthen the due diligence of those responsible for staffing by requiring an independent, preliminary check of active conflicts of interest.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs should develop a process so that all regional and agency offices consistently provide tribes with documentation on calculations and methodologies to identify resources available to administer a program using a self-determination contract. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Interior agreed with this recommendation and stated that it will develop updated procedures on the response to tribal inquiries for resources available for self-determination contracts. To fully implement this recommendation, BIA needs to develop updated procedures to respond to tribal inquiries regarding available resources. When we obtain additional information from BIA, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs should develop a process that results in consistent determinations for inherently federal functions and to provide documentation to tribes on specific activities and functions determined to be inherently federal. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: Interior agreed with this recommendation. When we obtain additional information from BIA, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs should establish a process to track and monitor the disbursement of funds associated with self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs
Status: Open

Comments: Interior agreed with this recommendation and is developing documentation on the process for the disbursement of funds. Once the agency provides additional information regarding its efforts to implement the recommendation, we will evaluate the status of it.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should direct the Chief of Appeals, in coordination with the IRS Human Capital Office, to conduct a skills gap analysis specific to Appeals mission needs and develop a strategy for mitigating any identified gaps. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. As of April 2020, the Office of Appeals stated that it is working with the IRS Human Capital Office to design a questionnaire for all Appeals managers to identify the technical and organizational skills necessary to meet organizational short and long-term needs for the Appeals Officer position. This information will be used to conduct a skills gap analysis on the current Appeals workforce and to enhance the selection/hiring process to ensure future hires possess necessary skills. IRS plans to complete these actions by October 2020, and Appeals stated that time frame for this corrective action may be affected by budgetary and resource constraints. GAO will continue to monitor IRS's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should evaluate the existing monitoring for collection due process appeal requests and address deficiencies in collection staff meeting the requirement for timely transfer to the Office of Appeals. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. In July 2019, IRS evaluated the existing monitoring for collection due process appeal requests to identify any impediments to collection staff timely transferring these requests to the Office of Appeals and provided the studies and related recommendations to GAO. The affected IRS collection units have developed action plans to address deficiencies in case transfer time. These plans include modifying inventory software to alert both staff and managers on the number of days collection due process requests have been under review. IRS also plans to update relevant IRM documentation in early 2020 to ensure that receipt dates of collection due process appeal requests are recorded for all cases and that there is appropriate notation of reasons why certain cases exceed established timeframes for transfer to the Office of Appeals. To fully implement this recommendation, IRS will need to provide GAO copies of the updated IRM as well as evidence of other corrective actions outlined in its evaluations of its monitoring procedures for collection due process appeal requests. GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should establish timeframes and monitoring procedures for timely transfer of taxpayer appeals requests by examination compliance units to the Office of Appeals. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. All four IRS business operating divisions have a corrective action plan and established and documented time frames for timely appeal transfer as of February 2020. While three business operating divisions have reporting procedures planned for monitoring timely appeal transfer, one division has not provided a plan for monitoring its timeliness in transferring cases to the Office of Appeals. To fully implement this recommendation, IRS needs to assess whether the planned monitoring actions will result in timely transfer of examination appeals. As of February 2020, data tracking the time from taxpayer request for appeal to when it is received by the Office of Appeals indicated that the actual transfer times are longer than the established time frames. Delays in transferring such requests can result in increased interest costs for taxpayers because interest continues to accumulate on the tax liability during the appeal process. Further, taxpayers unsure of their appeal status may call or write to IRS, tying up other IRS staff to respond to inquiries about appeals delayed in transfer. GAO will continue to monitor IRS's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should direct the Chief of Appeals to regularly report and share with each compliance unit the data on the time elapsed between when a taxpayer requests an appeal to when it is received in the Office of Appeals. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. In February 2019, IRS stated that the Chief of Appeals will share with each compliance unit data on the time elapsed between when a taxpayer requests an appeal to when it is received in the Office of Appeals. Appeals will also conduct an assessment with IRS compliance units of the time elapsed between when a taxpayer requests an appeal to when it is received in the Office of Appeals and implement improvements based on that assessment. As of February 2020, Appeals demonstrated that it provided to compliance units initial example data that tracks the time from taxpayer request for appeal to when it is received by the Office of Appeals. As of April 2020, it continues to refine the format of these reports. Appeals said it plans to do an assessment of the data with compliance units and will provide an example of this analysis when it is complete. IRS plans to complete these actions by October 2020, and GAO will continue to monitor IRS's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should provide more transparency to taxpayers on historical average total appeal resolution times. This could include publishing average total resolution times by workstream on an Office of Appeals web page as well as including total expected times in the Appeals welcome letter. (Recommendation 5)

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

Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. In February 2019, IRS stated that the Chief of Appeals will review appeal resolution times and participate in IRS-wide efforts to improve transparency of resolution timeframes. As of June 2019, the Office of Appeals explained that IRS was beginning to simplify its website, including the Appeals website, with a focus on making it more customer friendly. IRS plans to complete these actions by June 2020, and GAO will continue to monitor IRS's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury, consistent with its responsibilities under GPRAMA and Executive Orders for customer service, should ensure that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue takes action to make Appeals customer service standards and performance results more transparent to the public. This could include publishing customer service standards and related performance measure results on the Office of Appeals web page on IRS.gov. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: Treasury agreed with this recommendation and plans to monitor IRS implementation. In February 2019, IRS stated that it will publish customer service standards and related performance measure results on the Office of Appeals web page on IRS.gov. As of April 2020, the Office of Appeals stated it plans to use information from its redesigned customer satisfaction survey to address this recommendation and is determining how to include the performance information on its website. IRS plans to complete these actions by June 2020, and GAO will continue to monitor IRS's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury, consistent with its responsibilities under GPRAMA and Executive Orders for customer service, should ensure that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue takes action to develop a mechanism to solicit and consider public input and customer feedback on a regular basis on current and proposed IRS appeal policies and procedures. This could include leveraging existing IRS advisory bodies or establishing an Office of Appeals advisory body representing the taxpaying public, the tax practitioner community, and businesses to solicit customer perspectives. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: Treasury agreed with this recommendation and will monitor IRS implementation. In February 2019, IRS stated that it will leverage existing IRS advisory bodies to solicit customer perspectives. In January 2020, the Office of Appeals reported that it had begun to meet with the IRS Advisory Committee (IRSAC) to solicit customer perspectives, with its first interactions beginning in November 2019. The Office of Appeals stated that, in addition to this action, its leadership continues to meet with other external bodies to capture public input and customer feedback on an ad hoc basis. As of April 2020, the Office of Appeals stated it plans to participate in IRSAC's public meetings. Since the Office of Appeals has only begun leveraging IRSAC to solicit customer perspectives in November 2019 in a working session, GAO will continue to monitor the implementation of this recommendation to ensure sustained interaction with IRSAC through working sessions, as well as public meetings.

Recommendation: The Commandant of the Coast Guard should either develop new performance goals to address mission activity gaps, or explain in the Coast Guard's Annual Performance Report (APR) why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2017, the Coast Guard concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would add new measures in future Annual Performance Reports (APRs) and explain what is measured and what is not, as appropriate. In May 2020, the Coast Guard provided GAO with its updated fiscal year 2019 APR. After reviewing the fiscal year 2019 APR, we found that the Coast Guard made revisions to the goals for the Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security (PWCS) and Marine Environmental Protection-prevention activities (MEP) missions and added a goal for the Search and Rescue mission. However, the APR did not include additional goals or an explanation why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not for the other performance goals we previously identified as not fully addressing all related mission activities. In its July 2020 update to this recommendation, the Coast Guard reported that the metrics published in the APR are measures of Coast Guard performance and not performance goals. The Coast Guard also noted that it continually evaluates the utility of its performance measures, and makes changes to individual measures, as well as its suite of measures, when doing so provides meaningful improvement. In its July 2020 update, the Coast Guard added that targets established for performance measures are intended to be realistic expectations of future performance and targets are continually evaluated and changed when current performance modify expectations. However, we continue to believe that in the absence of documentation explaining how existing performance goals address each mission, the extent to which the Coast Guard's performance goals encompass all of its mission activities is unclear. Either developing new goals to address mission activity gaps, or describing in the APR how existing goals sufficiently assess the performance of each mission could provide more meaningful information on progress in achieving Coast Guard's missions to executive branch decision makers, Congress, and the public. In order to fully implement the recommendation as intended, in instances in which performance goals do not fully address all of the respective mission activities, the Coast Guard's APR should include an explanation of the Coast Guard's rationale for why certain aspects of mission performance are measured while others are not. We will continue to follow-up on the Coast Guard's efforts to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the FCC should establish quantifiable goals and related measures--performance indicators, targets, and timeframes--for its enforcement program and annually publish the results to demonstrate the performance of this program and improve transparency regarding FCC's enforcement priorities. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In 2018, FCC included quantifiable goals and related measures for its enforcement program in FCC's Fiscal Year 2019 Performance Plan, which is included in FCC's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Estimate to Congress. FCC plans to publish the results in its Fiscal Year 2019 Performance Report. FCC expects to release this report in March 2020.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the FCC should establish, and make publically available, a communications strategy outlining the agency's enforcement program for external stakeholders, to improve engagement with the telecommunications community on the purposes, objectives, and processes the Enforcement Bureau employs to achieve its mission. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2019, FCC has yet to take action on 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 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: As DOD continues to improve the completeness and transparency of subsequent joint reports' methodologies in order to assist Congress in understanding the basis of the NC3 estimates by documenting the methodological assumptions and limitations affecting the report's estimates for sustaining and modernizing the NC3 system, as we previously recommended, for future joint reports, the DOD CIO should include explanations of how DOD (1) selects program elements for inclusion in its NC3 estimate, (2) determines its weighted analysis ratios, and (3) differentiates its methodology for calculating operation and maintenance estimates from its methodologies for calculating estimates for the other NC3 line items.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Chief Information Officer
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of the issuance of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Joint Report, DOD has taken some steps to address this recommendation. For example, DOD provided more information on the methodologies used to develop NC3 budget estimates. However, the methodology reported for NC3 estimates is still not transparent and DOD must still provide additional information beyond what the methodology in the joint report to clarify differences with the FYDP. However, according to DOD officials, actions will be taken to incorporate a more robust methodology that takes into account these issues in the FY2020 Joint Report. We will re-evaluate DOD's implementation of this recommendation as we review future joint reports.

Recommendation: In order to assist Congress in comparing year-to-year cost estimates between joint reports, for future joint reports, the Secretary of the Air Force should provide information about any programmatic changes (i.e., programs being moved from one line item to another) in its estimates and include an explanation of the reasons for those changes and how those changes may affect year-to-year comparisons of the budget estimates.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In the Fiscal Year 2019 Joint Report issued in November 2018, the Air Force identified some instances of programmatic changes in its estimates. However, not all programmatic changes were identified in the report. We will continue to monitor DOD's response to this recommendation as we review future annual joint budget estimate reports.

Recommendation: To address control weaknesses and related program-integrity risks we identified in Lifeline, the Chairman of FCC should require Commissioners to review and approve, as appropriate, spending above the budget in a timely manner.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: On November 16, 2017, FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed to adopt a self-enforcing budget mechanism for the Lifeline program. However, as of January 2020, FCC has not yet adopted a decision on this proposal.

Recommendation: To address control weaknesses and related program-integrity risks we identified in Lifeline, the Chairman of FCC should establish time frames to evaluate compliance plans and develop instructions with criteria for FCC reviewers how to evaluate these plans to meet Lifeline's program goals.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: According to the FCC as of January 28, 2020, the agency does not currently have a schedule to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To address control weaknesses and related program-integrity risks we identified in Lifeline, the Chairman of FCC should develop an enforcement strategy that details what violations lead to penalties and apply this as consistently as possible to all Lifeline providers to ensure consistent enforcement of program violations; the strategy should include a rationale and method for resource prioritization to help maximize the effectiveness of enforcement activities.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: FCC's enforcement must remain flexible in order to be responsive to the ever changing variants that Universal Service Fund violations may take. According to the FCC, as with all Commission matters, the Chairman may indicate agency priorities in terms of subject matter, but the Chairman does not dictate which cases the Enforcement Bureau pursues. The Office of the Chairman, in consultation with the Enforcement Bureau, has articulated priorities with respect to enforcement activities in the Lifeline area including, but not limited to: 1. Detection and elimination of willful attempts to defraud the Lifeline Program by claiming support subsidies for ineligible or fictitious subscribers. 2. Detection and elimination of unlawful claims for enhanced support for Tribal areas. 3. Detection and elimination of carrier collections of multiple support subsidies for duplicative subscribers, regardless of the source of duplications. 4. Detection and elimination of carrier failures to de-enroll inactive or ineligible subscribers. The Enforcement Bureau has focused its enforcement efforts in line with these priorities and has taken a number of actions since the publication of GAO-17-538.

Recommendation: To address our findings regarding the USF, the Chairman of FCC should take action to respond to USAC requests for guidance and address pending requests concerning USF contribution requirements to ensure the contribution factor is based on complete information and that USF pass-through charges are equitable.

Agency: Federal Communications Commission
Status: Open

Comments: According to the FCC, the FCC is scheduled to complete implementing this recommendation in December 2021.

Recommendation: As DOT, in response to the FAST Act, conducts additional evaluation and analysis of ECP brakes and updates the regulatory impact analysis, the Secretary of Transportation should direct FRA and PHMSA to create a plan to collect data from railroads' ongoing and future operational experiences using ECP brakes. The plan should include details on how the agency will work with railroads to collect this data, ensure that such data are reliable, and analyze these data to conduct a retrospective analysis of the ECP brakes requirement that could help inform any potential future actions regarding ECP brakes.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2017, DOT announced that it would rescind the electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake rule because its updated Regulatory Impact Analysis estimated that the rule's costs would exceed its benefits. Subsequently, in September 2018, DOT rescinded the ECP brake rule. As a result, DOT confirmed with us in August 2019 that it does not intend to create a plan to collect data from railroads' use of ECP brakes.

Recommendation: As DOT, in response to the FAST Act, conducts additional evaluation and analysis of ECP brakes and updates the regulatory impact analysis, if, based on its updated analysis, DOT promulgates a new rule on the applicable ECP brake system requirements, the Secretary of Transportation should direct FRA and PHMSA to require that freight railroads, once they equip with ECP brakes in response to the requirement, collect and provide data to FRA on their ongoing operational experience with ECP brakes.

Agency: Department of Transportation
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2017, DOT announced that it would rescind the electronically-controlled pneumatic (ECP) brake rule because its updated Regulatory Impact Analysis estimated that the rule's costs would exceed its benefits. DOT subsequently rescinded the ECP brake rule in September 2018. As a result, this recommendation is currently no longer relevant and DOT confirmed with us in August 2019 that it does not plan to implement this regulation.

Recommendation: To provide greater transparency in the reporting of FOIA litigation costs, Congress could consider requiring Justice to provide a cost estimate for collecting and reporting information on costs incurred when 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 regarding the reporting of costs for defending lawsuits in which the plaintiffs prevailed.

Recommendation: Congress could consider amending the act to require Justice to reflect in its Litigation and Compliance reports, changes in the award of attorneys' fees and costs resulting from the appeals process and settlement agreements between agencies and plaintiffs, if deemed to be cost-effective.

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.

Recommendation: To improve the quality of the data published on ForeignAssistance.gov and help ensure consistency in published information, the Secretary of State should, in consultation with the Director of OMB and the USAID Administrator, develop additional guidance that takes into consideration current challenges to updating ForeignAssistance.gov with verified data.

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of May 2020, State had taken some steps to coordinate with OMB and USAID to improve the quality of data reported for ForeignAssistance.gov. Notably, in May 2020, State and USAID submitted a joint report to Congress outlining a plan to consolidate the two federal websites reporting foreign assistance spending--ForeignAssistance.gov (managed by State) and explorer.usaid.gov (managed by USAID). As part of the plan, State and USAID will establish a joint data governance structure to reduce discrepancies in data, bolster the capacity of agencies to submit data, and ensure the accuracy and quality of data. Once the governance structure is finalized, they will send a copy to GAO. GAO will then review this information to assess if it sufficiently addresses GAO's recommendation.

Recommendation: To promote further transparency in measuring the federal government's progress against deficit reduction targets required under current law, the Director of the Office of Management of Budget should identify and publicly report the total amount of actual reductions in budget authority government-wide each year as a result of sequestration or the reduction of discretionary spending limits under BBEDCA.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2018, OMB staff maintained their position of disagreement with this recommendation as summarized in our April 2016 report. As of January 2020, OMB has not provided any plans to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that agencies report consistent and comparable data on federal spending, the Director of OMB, in collaboration with the Secretary of the Treasury, should provide agencies with additional guidance to address potential clarity, consistency, or quality issues with the definitions for specific data elements including Award Description and Primary Place of Performance and that they clearly document and communicate these actions to agencies providing this data as well as to end-users.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB has taken some actions to address this recommendation related to procurement awards, such as adopting a shorter character limit for the "Award Description" element and providing additional guidance for the "Primary Place of Performance" element. However, it needs to provide additional guidance for these data elements related to grant awards to ensure collection of consistent and comparable information.

Recommendation: To better ensure agencies fulfill their requirements, including implementing IQA guidelines and helping to promote easier public access to IQA information on agency websites, the Director of OMB should consolidate and centralize on OMB's IQA guidance website a government-wide summary of requests for correction submitted under the IQA.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: According to OMB, during the last two years OIRA has significantly improved the ease of access to and findability of documents on OMB's information quality website. OMB says it has a number of additional improvements in progress. We have requested information on those additional improvements. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure agencies fulfill their requirements, including implementing IQA guidelines and helping to promote easier public access to IQA information on agency websites, the Director of OMB should work with the Department of Defense and the Federal Housing Finance Agency to help ensure that they post their IQA administrative mechanisms and IQA guidance online.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: According to OMB, it worked with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to improve the accessibility of their Information Quality Act guidance. In addition, OMB stated that FHFA took it upon themselves to update their guidelines. OMB has not provided any information regarding its work with DOD in this area. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To better ensure agencies fulfill their requirements, including implementing IQA guidelines and helping to promote easier public access to IQA information on agency websites, the Director of OMB should provide additional guidance for agencies to help improve the transparency and usability of their IQA websites to help ensure the public can easily find and access online information about agency IQA implementation. Such guidance should include (1) specific time frames for agencies to post information on the IQA correction requests they have received, including making it clear when agencies have not received IQA requests; (2) instructions for agencies to include a statement on their IQA websites that the agencies may address correction requests through other administrative processes; (3) instructions for agencies to include, when responding to correction requests, whether those agencies plan to address the request through another administrative processes, and if so, which process they will use; and (4) suggestions for improving usability of agencies' websites including fixing broken links.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: According to OMB, in conjunction with its annual data call, the agency has and will continue to provide guidance to agencies about improving the transparency and usability of their websites, including the need to update broken links. In addition OMB issued M-19-15, designed to address a number of related and additional implementation concerns, including transparency and procedural improvements. OMB's guidance to date has not included specific items as specified in the recommendation. We will continue to monitor OMB's efforts related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To further ensure the effective screening of work reports, SSA should monitor its process for handling work reports to determine whether staff are taking action on work reports in accordance with proper procedures, and provide feedback to staff as needed.

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: SSA continues to disagree with this recommendation as of December 2019. As we reported, when SSA accepts a beneficiary's return to work allegation (work report), staff have 30 days to determine whether additional action is needed, such as a continuing disability review (CDR) to assess continued eligibility and determine whether benefits should be adjusted. However, not all work reports result in a CDR, and GAO reported that SSA lacks an oversight process to help determine whether work reports are not resulting in CDRs when they should. SSA continues to maintain that its staff carefully review work reports and make independent determinations on the need for a CDR. Absent an oversight process to ensure that work reports are properly screened, SSA may be missing opportunities to prevent overpayments for unreported work. SSA further reported that it may decide to complete a CDR through alternative approaches, such as its Continuing Disability Review Enforcement Operation process using Internal Revenue Service data, its Quarterly Earnings Project using Office of Child Support Enforcement data, or its analysis of electronically reported wages. However, SSA did not indicate whether these alternative avenues for conducting CDRs could identify errors made by its staff handling work reports and result in feedback. Implementing this recommendation will help ensure that SSA staff appropriately take action on work reports.

Recommendation: To enhance beneficiary understanding of work reporting requirements, SSA should: (a) Clarify work reporting requirements provided to beneficiaries. (b) Explore options for increasing the frequency of reporting reminders to DI beneficiaries, similar to those currently available to SSI recipients.

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of December 2019, SSA reported taking several steps to clarify work reporting requirements. For instance, SSA reported it has developed outreach materials to share information with beneficiaries and advocacy groups. However, SSA has not provided sufficient documentation for GAO to determine if it has clarified issues identified in GAO's 2015 report, such as how and when to report work, and that beneficiaries may have to repay overpayments that occur even when they report work. Finally, SSA has not indicated whether it has assessed options for increasing the frequency of reporting reminders to DI beneficiaries. Until SSA can demonstrate that it has improved the clarity of its work reporting requirements and frequency of its work reporting reminders, DI beneficiaries may continue to incur overpayments, or be required to repay overpayments that occurred even though they reported work.

Recommendation: To improve the public reporting about how agencies are ensuring the quality of performance information used to measure progress towards their priority goals, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, and Labor, and the Administrator of NASA should more fully address GPRAMA requirements and OMB guidance by working with OMB to describe on Performance.gov how they are ensuring the quality of performance information used to measure progress towards their APGs.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has identified five priority goals (APGs) for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. USDA states that action plans and progress updates for these goals are "coming soon". In a November 2018 letter to the Comptroller General, USDA's Inspector General acknowledged that additional efforts are needed to better describe the quality of the data supporting the APGs and said that the Department will increase the amount of information provided in the quarterly APG updates. In April 2020, we followed up and once more requested updated information from USDA officials. As of May 6, 2020, we have not received the requested information. We will continue to monitor USDA's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the public reporting about how agencies are ensuring the quality of performance information used to measure progress towards their priority goals, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, and Labor, and the Administrator of NASA should more fully address GPRAMA requirements and OMB guidance by working with OMB to describe on Performance.gov how they are ensuring the quality of performance information used to measure progress towards their APGs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) has identified three priority goals (APGs) for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. DOD states action plans and progress updates are "coming soon" for Performance.gov. In March 2020, DOD officials reported that they continue to work to address our recommendation. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the public reporting about how agencies are ensuring the quality of performance information used to measure progress towards their priority goals, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, and Labor, and the Administrator of NASA should more fully address GPRAMA requirements and OMB guidance by working with OMB to describe on Performance.gov how they are ensuring the quality of performance information used to measure progress towards their APGs.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of the Interior (Interior) has identified six priority goals (APGs) for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. Interior states on Performance.gov that action plans and progress updates are "coming soon". We will continue to monitor Interior's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the public reporting about how agencies are ensuring the quality of performance information used to measure progress towards their priority goals, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, Interior, and Labor, and the Administrator of NASA should more fully address GPRAMA requirements and OMB guidance by describing in their agencies' annual performance plans and reports how they are ensuring the quality of performance information used to measure progress towards their APGs.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Performance Plan and Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Performance Report provides a general statement on how the agency uses a standardized methodology to measure its performance and that agency officials attest to the quality of the performance information. USDA also identifies its priority goals for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, but specific data quality explanation is not provided for these APGs. In a November 2018 letter to the Comptroller General, USDA's Inspector General stated that the Department agrees with the recommendation and will begin providing data quality explanation for the APGs in its next annual performance plan and report to be published in February 2019, but our review in 2019 found no such explanation. Further, as noted above the most recent plan and report do not provide the required explanation. In April 2020, we once more requested updated information from USDA officials and as of May 6, 2020 have not received the requested information. We will continue to monitor USDA's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the public reporting about how agencies are ensuring the quality of performance information used to measure progress towards their priority goals, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, Interior, and Labor, and the Administrator of NASA should more fully address GPRAMA requirements and OMB guidance by describing in their agencies' annual performance plans and reports how they are ensuring the quality of performance information used to measure progress towards their APGs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense's (DOD) Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Annual Performance Plan and FY2019 Annual Performance Report states that, "each goal owner has attested the performance results and narrative information included in this report is complete, accurate, and reliable; and that data validation and verification procedures are documented and available upon request," and DOD refers readers to Performance.gov for more information about its priority goals (APGs). However, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires agencies to publish more specific data quality explanation for each APG in performance plans and reports and on Performance.gov. DOD's performance plan and report does not contain the more specific explanation required. Nor did our review of Performance.gov find the required explanation. In March 2020, DOD officials reported that they continue to work to address our recommendation. We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the public reporting about how agencies are ensuring the quality of performance information used to measure progress towards their priority goals, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, Interior, and Labor, and the Administrator of NASA should more fully address GPRAMA requirements and OMB guidance by describing in their agencies' annual performance plans and reports how they are ensuring the quality of performance information used to measure progress towards their APGs.

Agency: Department of the Interior
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of the Interior's (Interior) 2021/2020 Annual Performance Plan & 2019 Report (APP&R) includes a section concerning data accuracy and reliability and describes in general terms how Interior ensures the accuracy and reliability of performance information and how it addresses the five data quality requirements in the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. Interior states in this section that measurement procedures for agency performance goals are described on Performance.gov. As of May 2020, our review found that Interior has not provided specific data quality explanation for its APGs on Performance.gov. We will continue to monitor Interior's efforts to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: To provide decision makers with better insight and additional context to identify any significant changes to the estimates in the joint report from the prior year and understand the reasons for such changes, and to improve the completeness and transparency of the budget estimates in the report, we recommend that, for future joint reports, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer (DOD CIO), and the Secretary of Energy direct the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to provide more thorough documentation in the joint report on the methodologies used to develop the budget estimates, including information that may be available in related planning documents, and ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information included.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In the Fiscal Year 2019 Joint Report issued in November 2018, DOD had taken some steps to address this recommendation. For example, DOD provided more information on the methodologies used to develop budget estimates. However, DOD did not provide complete documentation of the methodologies used to determine budget estimates in the Joint Report. Specifically, DOD provided additional methodological information not included in the Joint Report to GAO in order to fully account for the estimates presented in the FY 2019 Joint Report. Both the Navy and the Air Force stated they would provide the additional methodological information in the FY 2020 Joint Report. In addition, we again identified some instances in which the Air Force's underlying budget information did not match its estimates in the Joint Report. Air Force officials explained that these discrepancies were due to an accounting error in the internal funding system and that the errors will be rectified in the FY 2020 Joint Report. We will continue to monitor DOD's response to this recommendation as we review future Joint reports.

Recommendation: To provide decision makers with better insight and additional context to identify any significant changes to the estimates in the joint report from the prior year and understand the reasons for such changes, and to improve the completeness and transparency of the budget estimates in the report, we recommend that, for future joint reports, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer (DOD CIO), and the Secretary of Energy direct the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to provide more thorough documentation in the joint report on the methodologies used to develop the budget estimates, including information that may be available in related planning documents, and ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information included.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy (DOE) concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to address it. In both the fiscal year 2018 Joint Report and the fiscal year 2019 Joint Report, DOE included significantly more information on the methodologies used to develop its budget estimates. However, in the fiscal year 2019 Joint Report, DOE did not provide complete information on budget estimates over a 10-year period. Instead, it provided 5 years of budget estimates. We will re-evaluate DOE's implementation of this recommendation as we review future joint reports.

Recommendation: To provide decision makers with better insight and additional context to identify any significant changes to the estimates in the joint report from the prior year and understand the reasons for such changes, and to improve the completeness and transparency of the budget estimates in the report, we recommend that, for future joint reports, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Navy, and the DOD CIO, and the Secretary of Energy direct the Administrator of NNSA to provide comparative information on changes in the budget estimates from the prior year and explain the reasons for those changes.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with our recommendation. However, as of the issuance of the fiscal year 2019 Joint Report, DOE had not taken steps to address this recommendation. The fiscal year 2019 Joint Report did not provide comparative information on changes in NNSA program costs relative to costs in prior joint reports. We will re-evaluate DOE's implementation of this recommendation as we review future joint reports.

Recommendation: To help improve CMS's process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, the Administrator of CMS should better document the process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, including the methods used to review RUC recommendations and the rationale for final relative value decisions.

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

Comments: To help improve the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS) process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, in May 2015 we recommended that the Administrator of CMS better document the process, including the methods used to review recommendations from the American Medical Association/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) and the rationale for final relative value decisions. CMS concurred with this recommendation, stating that CMS establishes relative values for new, revised, and potentially misvalued physicians' services based on its review of a variety of sources of information, including the RUC. At that time, CMS officials told us the agency was working to improve the transparency of its process by proposing and finalizing changes to the process in the annual rule for the Physician Fee Schedule. Officials estimated that this process would take several years to complete. In order to close this recommendation as implemented, CMS will need to demonstrate that it has improved its internal and external documentation of its process for establishing relative values. As of June 2020, GAO was still waiting on confirmation from CMS that it had completed its enhancement process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services in a way that would allow for greater transparency and documentation. CMS will need to demonstrate that it has improved its internal and external documentation for establishing relative values in order for GAO to close the recommendation. CMS officials agreed the recommendation should remain open as progress continues.

Recommendation: To help improve CMS's process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, the Administrator of CMS should develop a process for informing the public of potentially misvalued services identified by the RUC, as CMS already does for potentially misvalued services identified by CMS or other stakeholders.

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

Comments: To help improve the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS) process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, in May 2015 we recommended that the Administrator of CMS develop a process for informing the public of potentially misvalued services identified by the American Medical Association/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), as CMS already does for potentially misvalued services identified by CMS or other stakeholders. CMS did not concur with this recommendation, asserting that the RUC is completely independent of CMS, and as such CMS has no authority to set the RUC's agenda for which services are reviewed. As of June 2020, CMS had not changed its position on the recommendation. We continue to believe that CMS needs to inform the public of potentially misvalued services identified by the RUC, as it does for potentially misvalued services identified by other stakeholders. We acknowledge that in 2017 CMS changed its process for establishing relative values by including proposed values for almost all services in the annual proposed rulemaking for the Physician Fee Schedule, which means that the changes in values for potentially misvalued services identified by the RUC are open for public comment before they become effective. However, we continue to believe CMS should inform stakeholders of these potentially misvalued services before CMS receives RUC recommendations for them and subsequently publishes the values in the proposed rule. Doing so would give stakeholders the same amount of time they have to provide input on potentially misvalued services identified by other stakeholders.

Recommendation: To help improve CMS's process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, the Administrator of CMS should incorporate data and expertise from physicians and other relevant stakeholders into the process as well as develop a timeline and plan for using the funds appropriated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014.

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

Comments: To help improve the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service's (CMS) process for establishing relative values for Medicare physicians' services, in May 2015 we recommended that the Administrator of CMS incorporate data and expertise from physicians and other relevant stakeholders into the process, as well as develop a timeline and plan for using the funds appropriated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA). CMS concurred with this recommendation, stating that stakeholders have the opportunity each year to nominate potentially misvalued services for review through a public nomination process. In August 2017, CMS officials reported that the final rulemaking for the 2017 Physician Fee Schedule included a data collection effort using PAMA funds and other authorities that will help furnish data to help in valuations for more than half of physician services. However, this effort pertains to global services, which are a specific type of service under the Physician Fee Schedule that include global, professional, and technical components, and does not apply to non-global services, which encompass almost half of physician services. Officials also reported that they had awarded a contract to explore data collection on practice expense and methodologies for using such data when valuing services in the Physician Fee Schedule. However, CMS did not indicate a specific timeline and plan for using the PAMA funds, just that the agency would continue to use these funds to explore more ways to gain improved data. In March 2018, CMS reported that it now incorporates data and expertise from relevant stakeholders-apart from the RUC-into its process for establishing relative values by including any new, revised, or potentially misvalued values in the annual proposed rulemaking, instead of establishing them on an interim final basis in the final rule. This means that the changes in values for services will be open for public comment prior to the implementation of changes to payment. We acknowledge that CMS has made progress towards meeting our recommendation by changing its process to allow for public comments on proposed changes to relative values before they go into effect. CMS has also made progress by beginning to use PAMA funds to assist with valuing global services and exploring avenues for collecting practice expense data. To close this recommendation, we need documentation that CMS has started to incorporate data more broadly into its process for establishing relative values and that it has a documented timeline and plan for how it will use the funds appropriated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. As of June 2020, we had not received this documentation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that FSOC is comprehensively identifying and considering companies, the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with FSOC members, should establish procedures to evaluate companies in Stage 2 and Stage 3 under both statutory determination standards when an evaluation in either stage concludes that a company does not meet one of the standards, or document--on a company-specific or more general basis--why the second determination standard is not relevant for determination evaluations.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2019, FSOC adopted final interpretive guidance that revises its approach to evaluating and determining whether to designate nonbank financial companies. The final revised guidance prioritizes an activities-based approach to identifying and addressing potential risks to financial stability and states that FSOC will pursue company-specific determinations only if the activities-based approach is not sufficient. The guidance further states that if FSOC does consider a company-specific determination, its evaluation will focus primarily on the first determination standard. The guidance does not indicate the establishment of procedures to evaluate companies under both determination standards for the purpose of comprehensively identifying and considering companies or to document why the other standard is not relevant. We will continue to monitor FSOC's implementation of the guidance and any additional actions that may be responsive to our recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that FSOC is comprehensively identifying and considering companies, the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with FSOC members, should develop a process to collect information necessary for Stage 1 analysis, as appropriate, from certain nonbank financial companies for which public or regulatory information is otherwise unavailable. For example, FSOC could have companies for which such information is unavailable and that meet certain characteristics (such as quantitative thresholds similar to those used in Stage 1) report necessary information to the Office of Financial Research.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2019, FSOC adopted final interpretive guidance that revises its approach to evaluating and determining whether to designate nonbank financial companies. The final revised guidance introduces a new stage 1 of the designation process in which FSOC would notify a nonbank financial company under review and consider available public and regulatory information. While the guidance states that a company under review in stage 1 may submit information it deems relevant to the evaluation, FSOC would not require the company to submit information during stage 1. We will continue to monitor FSOC's implementation of the revised guidance and any additional actions that may be responsive to our recommendation.

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 improve transparency in the rulemaking process, provide agencies and the public with information on why regulations are considered to be significant regulatory actions, and promote consistency in the designation of rules as significant regulatory actions, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget should work with agencies to clearly communicate the reasons for designating a regulation as a significant regulatory action. Specifically, OMB should encourage agencies to clearly state in the preamble of final significant regulations the section of Executive Order 12866's definition of a significant regulatory action that applies to the regulation.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: In a May 14, 2015 letter to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Director of OMB stated that nothing in the Executive Order 12866 prevents agencies from identifying the particular relevant definition of significance in rules, and that some rules do contain this information. The letter also stated that OMB believes it is appropriate to leave agencies flexibility in how they comply with Executive Order 12866, since such specific procedures for including such information is not a requirement of the Executive Order itself. However, in written comments submitted to GAO in March 2020, OMB stated that there are numerous examples from the past few years of agencies clearly identifying in the preambles of significant regulations the applicable section(s) of EO 12866's significance definition. OMB further stated that it encourages agencies to continue and expand this practice, especially where doing so has been found to improve agency planning for the regulatory process or to otherwise enhance decision-making. When we can further confirm that OMB has taken steps to encourage agencies to include this information in rules, we will provide an update.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should issue guidance on how funding or assistance from other government programs can be combined with the NMTC including the extent to which other government funds can be used to leverage the NMTC by being included in the qualified equity investment.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has not issued guidance on how funding or assistance from other government programs can be combined with the NMTC, as GAO recommended in July 2014. However, Treasury has taken steps toward addressing this action. The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund), which administers the NMTC program, completed new empirical research assessing the extent to which other government programs are being combined with the NMTC. The findings of this research (issued in August 2017) indicate that some NMTC projects, especially those using other government funds to leverage the NMTC, potentially received more government funds than needed to close a financing gap. As of January 2020, CDFI Fund officials said that they intend to solicit public comments on additional data to be collected from the Community Development Entities before using these data to identify NMTC-financed projects that may have excessive public funding. Once fully implemented, these additional actions could help ensure that low-income community projects do not receive more government assistance than required to finance a project.

Recommendation: To improve the completeness and accuracy of data submissions to the USASpending.gov website, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in collaboration with Treasury's Fiscal Service, should clarify guidance on (1) agency responsibilities for reporting awards funded by non-annual appropriations; (2) the applicability of USASpending.gov reporting requirements to non-classified awards associated with intelligence operations; (3) the requirement that award titles describe the award's purpose (consistent with our prior recommendation); and (4) agency maintenance of authoritative records adequate to verify the accuracy of required data reported for use by USASpending.gov.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: OMB has taken several steps related to this recommendation as of December 2019, but have not fully addressed it. Specifically, working with the Department of the Treasury to implement the DATA Act, OMB took partial action on two aspects of the recommendation and are still considering actions on two others. 1) OMB staff said they continue to deliberate on agency responsibilities for reporting awards funded by non-annual appropriations. 2) OMB staff provided a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) addressing the applicability of USASpending.gov reporting requirements for recipient information related to classified or sensitive information. GAO reviewed the FAQ and determined that additional guidance is still needed to ensure complete reporting of unclassified awards as required by FFATA. 3) OMB staff have agreed that it will be important to clarify guidance on how agencies can report on award titles that appropriately describes the awards' purposes and noted that they are working on providing additional guidance to agencies as part of their larger DATA Act implementation efforts. 4) OMB released policy guidance in May 2016 (MPM 2016-03) that identifies the authoritative sources for reporting procurement and award data. However, GAO's review of this policy guidance determined that it does not address the underlying source that can be used to verify the accuracy of non-financial procurement data or any source for data on assistance awards.

Recommendation: To improve subsequent joint reports to Congress on plans for sustaining and modernizing U.S nuclear weapons capabilities and to improve the transparency of the joint report's methodologies, thereby assisting Congress in understanding the basis for DOD's NC3 estimates in subsequent joint reports, the Secretary of Defense should direct the DOD Chief Information Officer to document in the report the methodological assumptions and limitations affecting the report's estimates for sustaining and modernizing the NC3 system.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In the Fiscal Year 2019 Joint Report issued in November 2018, DOD had taken steps to update its methodology for estimating nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) funding. For example, DOD provided more information on the methodologies used to develop budget estimates. However, the methodology reported for NC3 estimates is still not transparent and DOD should provide additional information beyond what the methodology in the joint report to clarify differences with the Future Year Defense Program. According to DOD officials, actions will be taken to incorporate a more robust methodology that takes into account these issues in the FY 2020 Joint Report. We will re-evaluate DOD's implementation of this recommendation when we review the FY 2020 joint report.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress with the necessary insight into program affordability, ensure its ability to effectively monitor total program costs and execution, and to facilitate investment decisions, the NASA's Administrator should direct the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to establish a separate cost and schedule baseline for work required to support the SLS Block I Exploration Mission-2 (EM-2) and report this information to the Congress through NASA's annual budget submission. If NASA decides to fly the SLS Block I beyond EM-2, establish separate life cycle cost and schedule baseline estimates for those efforts, to include funding for operations and sustainment, and report this information annually to Congress via the agency's budget submission.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that it defined and documented life-cycle costs for SLS to a first demonstrated capability, consistent with cost estimating best practices and NASA project and program management policy and that it would report costs associated with the second exploration mission via its annual budget submission. In January 2020, NASA stated that it is evaluating changes to NASA Procedural Requirements 7120.5E, "NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements," to better enable the necessary insight into program affordability and efficient monitoring of total program costs and execution for multi-year, multi-cadence type programs. Further, NASA stated that it is investigating plans to redefine performance expectations for multi-decade programs' formal commitments while maintaining visibility to the entire plan. To address this recommendation, NASA needs to establish separate cost and schedule baselines for work required to support SLS for EM-2, which is now known as Artemis II.

Recommendation: To provide the Congress with the necessary insight into program affordability, ensure its ability to effectively monitor total program costs and execution, and to facilitate investment decisions, because NASA intends to use the increased capabilities of the SLS, Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations efforts well into the future and has chosen to estimate costs associated with achieving the capabilities, the NASA's Administrator should direct the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate to establish separate cost and schedule baselines for each additional capability that encompass all life cycle costs, to include operations and sustainment. When NASA cannot fully specify costs due to lack of well-defined missions or flight manifests, forecast a cost estimate range -- including life cycle costs -- having minimum and maximum boundaries. These baselines or ranges should be reported to Congress annually via the agency's budget submission.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NASA partially agreed with this recommendation, stating that it had established separate programs for SLS, Orion, and the ground systems and adopted a block upgrade approach for SLS. In January 2020, NASA stated that it plans to establish an agency baseline commitment for capability upgrades (e.g., Block 1B upgrades, such as Mobile Launcher-2 and Exploration Upper Stage) above the $250 million threshold. A joint confidence level analysis will be performed at key decision points and will include the cost and schedule range estimates for each of these upgrades. To address this recommendation, NASA needs to provide evidence that it established separate cost and schedule baselines for each additional SLS, Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations capability blocks that encompass all life-cycle costs, including operations and sustainment.

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 better ensure that CBP's Office of Field Operations' (OFO) staffing processes are transparent and to help ensure CBP can demonstrate that these resource decisions have effectively addressed CBP's mission needs, the Commissioner of CBP should document the methodology and process OFO uses to allocate staff to land ports of entry on the southwest border, including the rationales and factors considered in making these decisions.

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

Comments: In May 2017, CBP's Office of Field Operations began working with a contractor to develop a comprehensive CBP position allocation methodology and tool. According to CBP officials, the purpose of this tool was to ensure a data driven, transparent process for allocating CBP resources--including staff--to land ports of entry on the southwest border. CBP officials stated that the contractor completed the tool in January 2018, CBP tested the tool in fiscal year 2018, and CBP planned to implement the tool in fiscal year 2019. However, CBP officials told us in September 2020 that a subsequent reorganization of the Office of Field Operations rendered the tool unusable without further modification. As a result, they used a manual method to allocate staff in fiscal year 2020 and plan to do the same in fiscal year 2021. As of September 2020, CBP officials planned to document the methodology and process they are now using to allocate staff to land ports of entry, including rationales and factors considered, by November 2020. This recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To improve the transparency of the process for reviewing and approving spending limits for comprehensive section 1115 demonstrations, the Secretary of Health and Human Services should reconsider adjustments and costs used in setting the spending limits for the Arizona and Texas demonstrations, and make appropriate adjustments to spending limits for the remaining years of each demonstration.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has taken steps to address GAO's 2013 recommendation, but more actions are needed for GAO to consider this recommendation implemented. Beginning in May 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began implementing a new budget neutrality policy. The new policy was outlined in a Letter to State Medicaid Directors in 2018, and it addressed certain problems GAO identified regarding states' allowed methods for determining budget neutrality of their demonstrations. CMS has begun phasing in the methods established under this new policy for all states, including the two states (Arizona and Texas) for which GAO recommended adjustments. One portion of the policy--under which spending limits will be updated to reflect more recent spending data--will be implemented beginning in 2021 and will address concerns GAO identified in Arizona's spending limit once its demonstration is renewed. In January 2019, CMS officials told GAO that the agency continues to allow states to include hypothetical costs when determining demonstration spending limits, an action GAO identified as a concern in Texas' demonstration. While CMS officials provided documentation on changes the agency made in the spending limit approved for Texas' new demonstration period beginning in January 2018, GAO reviewed these changes and found that further adjustments are needed to remove additional hypothetical costs from the Texas' spending limit.

Recommendation: To better ensure the credibility of IRIS assessments by enhancing their timeliness and certainty, the EPA Administrator should require the Office of Research and Development, should different time frames be necessary, to establish a written policy that clearly describes the applicability of the time frames for each type of IRIS assessment and ensures that the time frames are realistic and provide greater predictability to stakeholders.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of March 2020, we have not seen a formal written memo from the IRIS program laying out this information - in detail - publicly, or how timelines for assessments are influenced by various criteria. While IRIS program staff have discussed this issue, no written guidance has been created. Such communication from the IRIS Program, as well as more frequent updates of the timelines for chemicals currently in assessment and projected starting dates for every chemical listed as "under assessment" is needed.

Recommendation: To ensure that current and accurate information on chemicals that EPA plans to assess through IRIS is available to IRIS users--including stakeholders such as EPA program and regional offices, other federal agencies, and the public--the EPA Administrator should direct the Office of Research and Development to annually publish the IRIS agenda in the Federal Register each fiscal year.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program has established the priority chemicals it is working on, and has published some timelines via the IRIS Program Outlook document. However, this information has not been published as an agenda in the Federal Register.

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: 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: To help states identify and address quality-of-care concerns among individuals with developmental disabilities receiving Medicaid HCBS waiver services, the Administrator of CMS should encourage states to (1) include death as a critical incident and conduct mortality reviews if they do not already do so and (2) broaden their mortality review processes if they already include death as a critical incident and conduct mortality reviews.

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

Comments: As of August 2020, CMS had taken some steps to address this recommendation but additional actions are needed to fully implement it. In June 2018 CMS issued a Medicaid update to states explaining that CMS strongly encourages them to include unexpected deaths in their definition of reportable critical incidents. CMS also stated in the update that states should conduct a preliminary review of all beneficiary deaths and investigations should focus on those deaths determined to be unexpected. Further, CMS has shared with states best practices for state mortality reviews that include, for example, the use of an interdisciplinary review committee and taking actions to address identified quality of care problems. CMS also developed a webinar training (Incident Management 101) to help states improve their incident management systems for the Medicaid HCBS waiver. The webinar outlines the key elements of building a comprehensive incident management system (e.g., establishing a process for conducting investigations of incidents, tracking and trending incidents to help prevent and mitigate incidents from occurring) and reiterates CMS's expectation that states identify and address unexplained deaths on an ongoing basis in order to meet the waiver's health and welfare assurance. In late 2018, CMS planned to include in its revised waiver application questions to determine practices regarding states' review and evaluation of unexpected deaths. In September 2019, CMS officials notified us that it will provide an updated status report on this recommendation in November 2019. As of August 2020, CMS officials have not provided us information regarding its revised waiver application and technical guide. We will update the status of this recommendation when we receive this information.

Recommendation: To develop timely chemical risk information that EPA needs to effectively conduct its mission, the Administrator, EPA, should require the Office of Research and Development to re-evaluate its draft proposed changes to the IRIS assessment process in light of the issues raised in this report and ensure that any revised process periodically assesses the level of resources that should be dedicated to this significant program to meet user needs and maintain a viable IRIS database.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of February 2020, EPA officials indicated that the IRIS Program had almost completed internal review of a "Handbook for Developing IRIS Assessments," intended to guide staff through the sequential stages of the IRIS assessment process and ensure consistency across assessments. The Handbook, when finalized and used by staff, codifies the agency's effort to reevaluate their assessment process, but doesn't address the resources that should be dedicated to the IRIS Program. A workforce plan that includes both staff and budget resources consistent with user needs is necessary. As we reported in March 2019, the program has made strides utilizing project management software and project management techniques that enable the IRIS Program to better plan assessment schedules and utilize staff. However, we also reported in March 2019 that the President's budget requests since fiscal year 2018 have repeatedly cut the budget by as much as 40 percent for the Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA) area, of which IRIS is a part. While these cuts were not enacted by Congress, the President's fiscal year 2021 budget request again cuts the HERA program by 34 percent, or approximately $12.7 million dollars. These cuts could have an impact on the IRIS program's ability to meet EPA program and regional office needs, if enacted by Congress.

Recommendation: To enhance the transparency of CMS oversight and clarify and communicate the types of allowable state financing arrangements, the Administrator of CMS should provide each state CMS reviews under its initiative with specific and written explanations regarding agency determinations on the allowability of various arrangements for financing the nonfederal share of Medicaid payments and make these determinations available to all states and interested parties.

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

Comments: CMS has taken steps to provide states with specific and written explanations regarding agency determinations on whether various arrangements for financing the nonfederal share of Medicaid payments are allowable and making those determinations available to states and interested parties. In November 2019, CMS issued a proposed rule that the agency said would promote state accountability, improve federal oversight, and strengthen fiscal integrity of the Medicaid program. The proposed rule would establish new policies and codify existing policies related to the sources of funds that states use to finance the nonfederal share of Medicaid payments. For example, the rule is intended to provide CMS and states with better information and guidance to identify existing and emerging state financing issues, provide more clarity on allowable financing arrangements and promote state accountability. GAO will continue to monitor the status of the proposed rule, as well as review a final rule, if one is issued, to determine the extent to which it addresses the recommendation.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should resume presenting tax expenditures in the budget together with related outlay programs to show a truer picture of the federal support within a mission area.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: No executive action taken as of February 2020. OMB had not presented tax expenditures in the fiscal year 2021 budget together with the related outlay programs. OMB did not agree that GAO's September 2005 recommendation is necessary and stated that presenting information on tax expenditures together with related outlay programs is not useful for budgeting and that such a presentation is not part of the congressional budget process. However, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires a list of tax expenditures, including special tax credits, deductions, exclusions, exemptions, deferrals, and preferential tax rates. Whereas OMB favors reporting tax expenditures separately from the rest of the budget, GAO has reported that an integrated presentation is also useful to show the relative magnitude of tax expenditures compared to spending and credit programs across mission areas. OMB previously presented tax expenditure sums alongside outlays and credit activity for each budget function in the federal budget from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002, but discontinued the practice. Tax expenditures resulted in $1.32 trillion in forgone revenue in fiscal year 2019 and have been roughly approximate to federal discretionary spending levels in recent years.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should require that tax expenditures be included in the PART process and any future such budget and performance review processes so that tax expenditures are considered along with related outlay programs in determining the adequacy of federal efforts to achieve national objectives.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open

Comments: OMB made some progress in including tax expenditures along with related outlay programs in the executive branch's budget and performance review processes, as GAO recommended in September 2005. However, as of December 2019, OMB had not developed a systematic approach for conducting such reviews, and OMB staff told GAO that they were not pursuing the effort because of competing priorities, as well as capacity and resource constraints. Prior to that time, OMB had made some progress on the action. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget stated that the administration would work toward examining the objectives and effects of the wide range of tax expenditures in the budget. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires OMB and the agencies to identify the relevant tax expenditures that contribute to each crosscutting priority goal. Beginning with its August 2012 update to Circular No. A-11 with guidance for implementing GPRAMA and continuing in subsequent annual updates, OMB has directed agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to each of their agency priority goals. Beginning with the July 2013 update, OMB expanded its guidance to include identifying these contributions to agency strategic objectives. In both its July 2013 and July 2014 guidance, OMB stated that it planned to work with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and agencies to facilitate alignment of tax expenditure information with agency priority goals and strategic objectives. However, in its June 2015 update of this guidance, OMB removed the language about working with Treasury and agencies to align tax expenditures with agency goals. OMB's December 2019 guidance still requires agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to their agency priority goals and strategic objectives.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should develop and implement a framework for conducting performance reviews of tax expenditures. In developing the framework, the Director should (1) determine which agencies will have leadership responsibilities to review tax expenditures, how reviews will be coordinated among agencies with related responsibilities, and how to address the lack of credible performance information on tax expenditures; (2) set a schedule for conducting tax expenditure evaluations; (3) re-establish appropriate methods to test the overall evaluation framework and make improvements as experience is gained; and (4) to identify any additional resources that may be needed for tax expenditure reviews.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Treasury did not submit comments on this report and deferred to OMB. OMB agreed that this recommendation had promise and also said that tax expenditure evaluations were the responsibility of Treasury, which had access to the necessary data. As of February 2020, when the President's fiscal year 2021 budget was released, the Director of OMB had not developed a framework for reviewing tax expenditure performance, as GAO recommended in June 1994 and again in September 2005. Since their initial efforts in 1997 and 1999 to outline a framework for evaluating tax expenditures and preliminary performance measures, OMB and the Department of the Treasury have ceased to make progress and retreated from setting a schedule for evaluating tax expenditures. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget stated that developing an evaluation framework is a significant challenge due to limited data availability and analytical constraints of isolating the effect of any single program. The administration planned to focus on addressing some of these challenges so it can work toward crosscutting analyses that examine tax expenditures alongside related spending programs. However, OMB and Treasury have not reported on progress on this recommendation since the President's fiscal year 2012 budget. In December 2019, OMB said its Office of Economic Policy is responsible for the framework outline. OMB said it was exploring options to further develop its evaluation framework, which would include working with Treasury. The budget released in February 2020 did not provide an update on these evaluation framework efforts.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should develop and implement a framework for conducting performance reviews of tax expenditures. In developing the framework, the Director should (1) determine which agencies will have leadership responsibilities to review tax expenditures, how reviews will be coordinated among agencies with related responsibilities, and how to address the lack of credible performance information on tax expenditures; (2) set a schedule for conducting tax expenditure evaluations; (3) re-establish appropriate methods to test the overall evaluation framework and make improvements as experience is gained; and (4) to identify any additional resources that may be needed for tax expenditure reviews.

Agency: Executive Office of the President: Office of Management and Budget
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: No executive action has been taken. As of February 2020, when the President's fiscal year 2021 budget was released, the Director of OMB had not developed a framework for reviewing tax expenditure performance, as GAO recommended in June 1994 and again in September 2005. Since their initial efforts in 1997 and 1999 to outline a framework for evaluating tax expenditures and preliminary performance measures, OMB and the Department of the Treasury have ceased to make progress and retreated from setting a schedule for evaluating tax expenditures. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget stated that developing an evaluation framework is a significant challenge due to limited data availability and analytical constraints of isolating the effect of any single program. The administration planned to focus on addressing some of these challenges so it can work toward crosscutting analyses that examine tax expenditures alongside related spending programs. However, OMB and Treasury have not reported on progress on this recommendation since the President's fiscal year 2012 budget. As of December 2019, OMB said its Office of Economic Policy is responsible for the framework outline. OMB said it was exploring options to further develop its evaluation framework, which would include working with Treasury. The budget released in February 2020 did not provide an update on these evaluation framework efforts.

Recommendation: To ensure that policymakers and the public have the necessary information to make informed decisions and to improve the progress toward exercising greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, should require that tax expenditures be included in the PART process and any future such budget and performance review processes so that tax expenditures are considered along with related outlay programs in determining the adequacy of federal efforts to achieve national objectives.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2005, the Department of the Treasury responded that this recommendation did not relate to Treasury. OMB made some progress in including tax expenditures along with related outlay programs in the executive branch's budget and performance review processes, as GAO recommended in September 2005. However, as of December 2019, OMB had not developed a systematic approach for conducting such reviews, and OMB staff told GAO that they were not pursuing the effort because of competing priorities, as well as capacity and resource constraints. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget stated that the administration would work toward examining the objectives and effects of the wide range of tax expenditures in the budget. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires OMB and the agencies to identify the relevant tax expenditures that contribute to each crosscutting priority goal. Beginning with its August 2012 update to Circular No. A-11 with guidance for implementing GPRAMA and continuing in subsequent annual updates, OMB has directed agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to each of their agency priority goals. Beginning with the July 2013 update, OMB expanded its guidance to include identifying these contributions to agency strategic objectives. In both its July 2013 and July 2014 guidance, OMB stated that it planned to work with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and agencies to facilitate alignment of tax expenditure information with agency priority goals and strategic objectives. However, in its June 2015 update of this guidance, OMB removed the language about working with Treasury and agencies to align tax expenditures with agency goals. OMB's December 2019 guidance still requires agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to their agency priority goals and strategic objectives.