More Recent Headlines
GAO Reports
News stories and news briefs of Government Accountability Office audits, news, reports and testimony.
Featured Stories
GAO Issues Report on DOE's Environmental Cleanup Decision-Making
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup decision-making. The report (GAO-19-339) is titled "Environmental Liabilities: DOE Would Benefit from Incorporating Risk-Informed Decision-Making into Its Cleanup Policy".The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup decision-making. The report (GAO-19-339) is titled "Environmental Liabilities: DOE Would Benefit from Incorporating Risk-Informed Decision-Making into Its Cleanup Policy". The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee onEnergy, Rep. Paul Tonko, D-New York, chairman, Rep. John Shimkus, R-Illinois, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, and Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, chair of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, on Sept. 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) follows certain laws--including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act--agreements, federal guidance, and court decisions, which establish standards and procedures for DOE's cleanup of hazardous and radioactive waste. However, DOE does not have a framework for implementing these requirements and guidance to make cleanup decisions in a risk-informed manner. For example, DOE's 2017 cleanup policy, which governs the EM cleanup program, does not direct how EM should make environmental cleanup decisions, including how to make risk-informed cleanup decisions. For more than 20 years, several organizations--including the DOE Inspector General and GAO--have recommended that DOE adopt a risk-informed approach. By revising EM's 2017 cleanup policy to establish how EM should apply the essential elements of a risk-informed decision-making framework into its current decision-making requirements and guidance, DOE sites would be better able to implement consistent decision-making processes and ensure that resource allocation is risk informed to the extent practicable.
To assist agencies, such as DOE, in identifying and implementing the essential elements of risk-informed decision-making, GAO synthesized key concepts from relevant literature and input from experts who participated in GAO's meeting convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies). GAO subsequently developed a framework to be relevant to multiple types of cleanup decisions, from selecting a cleanup approach at a single site to prioritizing cleanup activities across sites. According to literature, entities implementing the framework should ensure that their decision-making process is participatory, logical, transparent, and traceable, and that it uses current scientific knowledge to produce technically credible results. The framework consists of four broad phases: (1) designing the decision-making process, (2) analyzing different options, (3) deciding which option is preferred, and (4) implementing and evaluating the preferred option. Each phase consists of several steps, such as identifying stakeholders, developing an analysis plan, and validating the analysis (see figure)."
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-339?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Why GAO Did This Study: "As of 2018, the U.S. government faced an estimated $577 billion in environmental liabilities. DOE is responsible for more than 85 percent of these liabilities. DOE is charged with cleaning up contamination from nuclear weapons production and energy research dating back to World War II and the Cold War, which generated large quantities of liquid and solid radioactive waste and contaminated soil and water. Since the mid-1990s, GAO and others have recommended that DOE adopt a risk-informed approach to making cleanup decisions--that is, an approach that helps agencies consider trade-offs among risk, cost, and other factors in the face of uncertainty and diverse stakeholder perspectives.
GAO was asked to review DOE's environmental cleanup decision-making. This report examines (1) the extent to which DOE has a framework for making risk-informed cleanup decisions, and (2) essential elements of a framework for making risk-informed cleanup decisions. GAO conducted a literature review, interviewed DOE officials, and convened an experts' meeting through the National Academies regarding risk-informed decision-making."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making two recommendations, including that DOE revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to establish how EM should apply the essential elements of a risk-informed decision-making framework into its current decision-making requirements and guidance. DOE agreed with both recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-339?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal cross-cutting environmental requirements that apply to drinking water infrastructure projects financed by loans from the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds program. The report (GAO-20-77R) is titled "Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: Limited Information Available on State or Local Requirements That Are Equivalent to Federal Cross-Cutting Environmental Requirements".The report was sent to Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, chairman, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Environment ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the federal cross-cutting environmental requirements that apply to drinking water infrastructure projects financed by loans from the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds program. The report (GAO-20-77R) is titled "Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: Limited Information Available on State or Local Requirements That Are Equivalent to Federal Cross-Cutting Environmental Requirements". The report was sent to Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, chairman, Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Delaware, ranking member of the Senate Environmentand Public Works Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, and Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Oct. 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Sixteen federal cross-cutting environmental requirements apply to the grants states receive from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to capitalize their Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) and the loans that utilities and municipalities receive from state Drinking Water SRFs, according to EPA guidance and officials. These cross-cutting requirements are generally found in laws other than the Safe Drinking Water Act as well as Executive Orders and apply to all projects and programs that receive federal financial assistance. EPA guidance issued in 2003 and 2015 identify these cross-cutting requirements. According to this guidance and EPA officials, the Clean Air Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and 14 other environmental cross-cutting requirements apply to certain loan projects and activities funded by the Drinking Water SRF.
Limited information is available on whether federal cross-cutting environmental requirements that apply to projects financed through the Drinking Water SRF program are equivalent to state or local requirements. EPA officials GAO interviewed were not certain of requirements at the state or local level that are equivalent to federal cross-cutting environmental requirements for the Drinking Water SRF program. However, they stated that states with larger tribal populations may have requirements similar to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. They also noted that states bordering oceans and states with more low lying areas may have more stringent flood plain management requirements than Flood Plain Management Executive Order 11988. In addition, officials GAO interviewed five organizations that represent drinking water systems and states, such as the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators and the American Water Works Association, did not have specific examples of environmental requirements at the state or local level that are equivalent to federal environmental requirements. Further, GAO's literature review did not identify any materials addressing state or local laws that are equivalent to federal cross-cutting environmental requirements.
An effort by the Council of Environmental Quality is underway to develop memoranda which compare and contrast state and local environmental review requirements with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements. None of the memoranda completed as of August 2019 determine whether state and local requirements are equivalent to NEPA."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The grants states receive from EPA to capitalize their Drinking Water SRFs and the loans that utilities and municipalities receive from state Drinking Water SRFs are subject to environmental and other federal cross-cutting requirements. The America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 includes a provision for GAO to examine federal cross-cutting environmental requirements and potentially equivalent state and local requirements. This report describes (1) the federal cross-cutting environmental requirements that apply to drinking water infrastructure projects financed by loans from the Drinking Water SRF program; and (2) what is known about which federal cross-cutting environmental requirements are equivalent to state or local requirements.
GAO reviewed EPA's guidance and interviewed EPA officials. Additionally, GAO conducted a literature review that included law reviews and journals to find any reviews, reports, or analyses that addressed state or local requirements equivalent to federal cross-cutting environmental requirements. GAO also interviewed officials from five organizations that represent or assist states, local governments, or drinking water systems."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is not making any recommendations in this report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-77R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Hardrock Mining Financial Assurance
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the value and adequacy of financial assurances that mining operators have provided to the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to guarantee estimated reclamation costs. The report (GAO-19-436R) is titled "Hardrock Mining: BLM and Forest Service Hold Billions in Financial Assurances, but More Readily Available Information Could Assist with Monitoring".The report was sent to Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the value and adequacy of financial assurances that mining operators have provided to the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to guarantee estimated reclamation costs. The report (GAO-19-436R) is titled "Hardrock Mining: BLM and Forest Service Hold Billions in Financial Assurances, but More Readily Available Information Could Assist with Monitoring". The report was sent to Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,on Sept. 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service hold billions of dollars in financial assurances, such as bonds, for nearly 2,000 hardrock mining operations for gold, silver, copper, and other hardrock minerals on federal land. The agencies have various practices for monitoring the adequacy of these assurances to cover estimated costs to reclaim--or restore and clean up--the land when operations cease.
As of October 2017, BLM held over $3 billion in financial assurances, which was approximately $11 million less than what BLM estimated was needed to cover reclamation costs. According to agency officials, BLM determines whether financial assurances are sufficient to cover estimated reclamation costs and annual reviews are done on time through its annual state certification process. As part of this process, BLM prepares an annual report that is to identify, among other things, which operations have inadequate financial assurances or have not had their financial assurances reviewed in a timely manner. This report also identifies the number of corrective action plans to be prepared by BLM offices to address any such deficiencies. BLM needs such information to help ensure financial assurances will be sufficient to cover estimated reclamation costs. However, based on data GAO reviewed, the annual report did not identify all the instances in which a corrective action plan was required. Agency officials said this occurred because the computer program that generated the report did not reflect all requirements in the state certification guidance. Modifying the computer program so that it identifies all instances in which a corrective action plan is needed would provide BLM with greater assurance that funds will be adequate to reclaim the land should the operator fail to do so when mining operations cease.
The Forest Service held approximately $251 million in financial assurances, as of November 2018. However, GAO was not able to determine the extent to which these financial assurances were adequate to cover estimated reclamation costs because the Forest Service's data system does not contain certain data needed to do so--such information is maintained in over 500 individual paper case files in the forest or district offices across 14 states. As a result, headquarters officials cannot readily determine whether forest or district offices are ensuring that financial assurances are adequate. Further, the data system includes a field for the date of the most recent review of the adequacy of the financial assurance, but Forest Service officials told GAO that forest and district offices generally do not populate the field and are not required to do so. Establishing a requirement to record this data would enable Forest Service headquarters' officials to efficiently determine whether annual reviews--a key mechanism to help ensure the adequacy of financial assurances--are occurring as required."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The General Mining Act of 1872 encouraged the development of the nation's mineral resources by allowing individuals to stake claims and obtain exclusive rights to valuable hardrock mineral deposits on land belonging to the United States. Since then, thousands of operators have extracted billions of dollars' worth of hardrock minerals from land managed by BLM and the Forest Service. However, some operators did not reclaim thousands of acres of federal land disturbed for exploration, mining, and mineral processing when their operations ceased. Some of these disturbed lands pose serious environmental and physical safety hazards, such as contaminated soil, open mine shafts, and decaying structures.
To help ensure lands will be reclaimed, BLM and the Forest Service have issued regulations requiring all hardrock mining operators to reclaim disturbed land when operations cease and provide financial assurance to guarantee reclamation. These regulations require operators to provide a reclamation plan and financial assurances to BLM or the Forest Service before beginning exploration or mining operations.
This report examines the value and adequacy of financial assurances that mining operators have provided to BLM and the Forest Service to guarantee estimated reclamation costs and how these agencies monitor the adequacy of these financial assurances. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed BLM and Forest Service financial assurance data and the agencies' regulations and policies on financial assurances. GAO compared the agencies' data and monitoring practices against federal internal control standards to assess the adequacy of the practices."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making three recommendations, including one to BLM and two to the Forest Service. Specifically, GAO recommends that BLM modify its computer program that generates its annual report to identify all the instances in which a corrective action plan is required. GAO also recommends that the Forest Service develop a centralized mechanism to record the estimated cost of reclamation for a mining operation, so it can be compared with the financial assurance held to ensure the assurances in place are adequate. The Forest Service should also require forest and district offices to enter the date of their last annual review in its data system. BLM and Forest Service concurred with GAO's recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-436R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on DOE's Environmental Cleanup Decision-Making
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup decision-making. The report (GAO-19-339) is titled "Environmental Liabilities: DOE Would Benefit from Incorporating Risk-Informed Decision-Making into Its Cleanup Policy".The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup decision-making. The report (GAO-19-339) is titled "Environmental Liabilities: DOE Would Benefit from Incorporating Risk-Informed Decision-Making into Its Cleanup Policy". The report was sent to Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ohio, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Illinois, chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee onEnergy, Rep. Paul Tonko, D-New York, chairman, Rep. John Shimkus, R-Illinois, Republican leader of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, and Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado, chair of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, on Sept. 18. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) follows certain laws--including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act--agreements, federal guidance, and court decisions, which establish standards and procedures for DOE's cleanup of hazardous and radioactive waste. However, DOE does not have a framework for implementing these requirements and guidance to make cleanup decisions in a risk-informed manner. For example, DOE's 2017 cleanup policy, which governs the EM cleanup program, does not direct how EM should make environmental cleanup decisions, including how to make risk-informed cleanup decisions. For more than 20 years, several organizations--including the DOE Inspector General and GAO--have recommended that DOE adopt a risk-informed approach. By revising EM's 2017 cleanup policy to establish how EM should apply the essential elements of a risk-informed decision-making framework into its current decision-making requirements and guidance, DOE sites would be better able to implement consistent decision-making processes and ensure that resource allocation is risk informed to the extent practicable.
To assist agencies, such as DOE, in identifying and implementing the essential elements of risk-informed decision-making, GAO synthesized key concepts from relevant literature and input from experts who participated in GAO's meeting convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies). GAO subsequently developed a framework to be relevant to multiple types of cleanup decisions, from selecting a cleanup approach at a single site to prioritizing cleanup activities across sites. According to literature, entities implementing the framework should ensure that their decision-making process is participatory, logical, transparent, and traceable, and that it uses current scientific knowledge to produce technically credible results. The framework consists of four broad phases: (1) designing the decision-making process, (2) analyzing different options, (3) deciding which option is preferred, and (4) implementing and evaluating the preferred option. Each phase consists of several steps, such as identifying stakeholders, developing an analysis plan, and validating the analysis (see figure)."
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-339?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Why GAO Did This Study: "As of 2018, the U.S. government faced an estimated $577 billion in environmental liabilities. DOE is responsible for more than 85 percent of these liabilities. DOE is charged with cleaning up contamination from nuclear weapons production and energy research dating back to World War II and the Cold War, which generated large quantities of liquid and solid radioactive waste and contaminated soil and water. Since the mid-1990s, GAO and others have recommended that DOE adopt a risk-informed approach to making cleanup decisions--that is, an approach that helps agencies consider trade-offs among risk, cost, and other factors in the face of uncertainty and diverse stakeholder perspectives.
GAO was asked to review DOE's environmental cleanup decision-making. This report examines (1) the extent to which DOE has a framework for making risk-informed cleanup decisions, and (2) essential elements of a framework for making risk-informed cleanup decisions. GAO conducted a literature review, interviewed DOE officials, and convened an experts' meeting through the National Academies regarding risk-informed decision-making."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making two recommendations, including that DOE revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to establish how EM should apply the essential elements of a risk-informed decision-making framework into its current decision-making requirements and guidance. DOE agreed with both recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-339?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Federal Environmental Justice Efforts
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal environmental justice efforts. The report (GAO-19-543) is titled "Environmental Justice: Federal Efforts Need Better Planning, Coordination, and Methods to Assess Progress".The report was sent to Sen. Bernard Sanders, D-Vermont, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, on Sept. 16. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "Most of the 16 agencies that are members of the interagency ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on federal environmental justice efforts. The report (GAO-19-543) is titled "Environmental Justice: Federal Efforts Need Better Planning, Coordination, and Methods to Assess Progress". The report was sent to Sen. Bernard Sanders, D-Vermont, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, on Sept. 16. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "Most of the 16 agencies that are members of the interagencyworking group on environmental justice--created by Executive Order 12898 in 1994--reported taking some actions to identify and address environmental justice issues, such as creating data tools, developing policies or guidance, and building community capacity through small grants and training. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created a mapping tool that can help identify low-income and minority communities exposed to health or environmental risks. Several agencies, such as EPA and the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and the Interior, also developed policies or guidance to analyze environmental justice issues during environmental reviews or enforcement activities. Most of the agencies supported their efforts with funds and staff from related programs, but EPA and the Department of Energy provided funds ($8.3 million in fiscal year 2018) and staff specifically for environmental justice.
Agencies' progress toward environmental justice is difficult to gauge, however, because most do not have updated strategic plans and have not reported annually on their progress or developed methods to assess progress. As they agreed to do in a 2011 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), most of the agencies developed environmental justice strategic plans, but only six have updated them more recently. Few agencies have measures or methods for assessing progress, and the working group has not provided guidance to help agencies with such assessments. The number of agencies issuing annual progress reports has declined (see fig.). Updated strategic plans and annual progress reports, along with guidance on performance measures and methods, would help agencies provide essential information to assess their progress.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-543?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The working group, chaired by EPA, has developed committees and written agreements to carry out its responsibilities to coordinate agencies' environmental justice efforts, but it is not carrying out several functions in the 1994 Executive Order. GAO has found that collaborative mechanisms, such as the working group, benefit from clear goals, but the working group's organizational documents do not contain clear strategic goals aligned to address the order. Clear strategic goals to carry out the executive order could enhance the group's strategic direction for intergovernmental environmental justice efforts."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Environmental justice seeks to address the disproportionately high distribution of health and environmental risks among low-income and minority communities by seeking their fair treatment and meaningful involvement in environmental policy. In 1994, Executive Order 12898 directed 11 federal agencies to identify and address environmental justice issues related to their activities and tasked an interagency working group to coordinate federal environmental justice efforts. In 2011, 16 agencies, including the 11 original agencies, recommitted to planning and reporting on environmental justice efforts by signing an MOU.
GAO was asked to review federal environmental justice efforts. This report examines agencies' environmental justice actions, strategic plans and progress reports, and working group collaboration. GAO reviewed agency environmental justice plans, reports, and funding data; interviewed agency officials; and compared working group collaboration to leading collaborative practices."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making 24 recommendations, including that agencies update environmental justice strategic plans and report on progress annually, and that EPA consult with other working group members to provide guidance on assessing progress and to set strategic goals. Of the 15 agencies with recommendations, eight agreed. Other agencies' responses included partial agreement, disagreement, and no comment. GAO continues to support its recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-543?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Marine Corps' Civilian Personnel Budget Management
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Marine Corps' management of its civilian personnel budget. The report (GAO-20-148) is titled "Civilian Personnel: Additional Guidance and Consistent Data Reporting Could Help Improve the Marine Corps' Budget Management".The report was sent to GrijalvaSen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Louisiana, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Marine Corps' management of its civilian personnel budget. The report (GAO-20-148) is titled "Civilian Personnel: Additional Guidance and Consistent Data Reporting Could Help Improve the Marine Corps' Budget Management". The report was sent to GrijalvaSen. James M. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Louisiana, chairman, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommitteeon Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Washington, chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Indiana, chairman, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, ranking member of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, on Oct. 16. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Marine Corps develops its civilian personnel budget request using prior fiscal year budget execution data with adjustments based on input from sources such as the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) [OUSD(C)] and the Department of the Navy. As part of the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps' budget request is added to the Navy's overall budget request, which is incorporated into the Department of Defense's (DOD) overall budget request.
The Marine Corps manages its civilian personnel based on dollar amounts--not full-time equivalent (FTE) workload like the other military services--through an approach called Manage to Payroll. Specifically, while the Marine Corps requests a certain number of FTEs each year as required by policy, the Marine Corps distributes the funds it receives to its commands by dollar amount and not based on the FTEs requested. This approach has benefits, such as providing flexibility to employ civilians based on current mission requirements. However, under this approach, for fiscal year 2019, internal Marine Corps' data show that four of its commands are either exceeding or not reaching their requested dollar amounts. Marine Corps policy does not provide guidance to its commands to manage FTEs to requested amounts. Without such updated guidance the Marine Corps risks overspending or underspending on its personnel requirements. In addition, internal Marine Corps civilian FTE data for fiscal years 2013 through 2018 is not consistent with data that OUSD(C) used to formulate DOD's overall civilian personnel budget request, as shown in the figure below.
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-148?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
The Marine Corps has not identified or reconciled differences between its internal data compared to data submitted in the annual budget request. If information in the Marine Corps' budget request does not reflect internal Marine Corps data, then Congress and DOD leadership may not have sufficient and appropriate information to make informed planning decisions."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The Marine Corps requested $1.81 billion to pay for approximately 16,000 civilian employees in its fiscal year 2020 budget request. The Office of Management and Budget directs federal agencies to develop civilian personnel budgets by calculating workload requirements, the time needed to complete the work, and the number of FTEs needed. The Marine Corps uses a unique budget formulation process that relies on prior fiscal year budget data to calculate FTE estimates for future civilian personnel budget requests.
Senate Report 115-290, accompanying a bill for the DOD Appropriations Act, 2019, included a provision for GAO to review how the Marine Corps develops its civilian labor requirements for both FTEs and funding and examine the benefits and shortfalls of the Manage to Payroll process. This report (1) describes how the Marine Corps formulates its civilian personnel budget request and (2) assesses the Marine Corps' management of its civilian personnel budget and FTEs, including the benefits and weaknesses of the process.
GAO reviewed DOD civilian personnel budget policies, analyzed fiscal years 2013 through 2018 Marine Corps budget data that tracks spending and FTE allotment, and compared 2013 through 2018 budget execution data to budget request data."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that the Marine Corps 1) updates its budget policies to include guidance for commands to manage civilian personnel to FTEs and 2) identifies and reconciles differences between its internal data and data OUSD(C) uses to formulate the Marine Corps' annual budget request. DOD concurred with both recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-148?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Health Effects from Chemicals in Stored Natural Gas
WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the health and environmental effects of activities at natural gas storage sites. The report (GAO-20-167) is titled "Natural Gas Storage: Actions Needed to Assess Inspection Workload and Progress toward Safety Outcomes".The report was sent to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, chairwoman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Oregon, and Rep. Don Beyer, D-Virginia, on Oct. 16. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "In 2018, the U.S. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the health and environmental effects of activities at natural gas storage sites. The report (GAO-20-167) is titled "Natural Gas Storage: Actions Needed to Assess Inspection Workload and Progress toward Safety Outcomes". The report was sent to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, chairwoman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Oregon, and Rep. Don Beyer, D-Virginia, on Oct. 16. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAO Found: "In 2018, the U.S.Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) set a goal for its natural gas storage inspection program to inspect all approximately 400 natural gas storage sites within 5 years, according to agency officials. PHMSA expected that all 25 eligible states would help inspect sites, but only 10 states agreed to partner with the agency. As a result, the agency's inspection workload increased by almost 60 percent from when it set its goal, according to PHMSA data. Because of the increase in its inspection workload over its preliminary estimate, PHMSA does not have assurance that it has enough resources to meet its inspection goal. Furthermore, PHMSA has not used a workforce analysis to inform its budget requests. PHMSA officials said that the agency does not expect to have enough data until 2022 or 2023 to further inform analysis of its workforce. By analyzing factors affecting states' willingness to partner with PHMSA and its workforce needs on an ongoing basis, the agency would have better assurance that it has the staff it needs to meet its inspection goal.
Health effects have been reported related to chemicals that may be found in stored natural gas. Several federal agencies--including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry--have documented potential health effects of chemicals that may be found in stored natural gas. In addition, some chemicals may be added to natural gas, such as sulfur odorants that give natural gas a distinct smell in case of leaks. The combination of such chemicals varies from one natural gas storage site to another, based on the attributes of that site such as its geologic type and the extent to which sulfur odorants are added to the natural gas before storage. Many of these chemicals have been linked to adverse health effects. However, research is limited on the health effects of exposure to stored natural gas in general and on the effects in particular from exposure to chemicals that may occur in natural gas storage leaks or be present at the storage sites. Reports linking health effects are available on specific chemicals but not in the context of natural gas storage, based on GAO's literature review."
Why GAO Did This Study: "About 400 natural gas storage sites are important to the U.S. natural gas system, providing about 30 percent of the nation's energy. During a 2015 leak at a storage site near Los Angeles, about 8,000 families were temporarily relocated due to symptoms such as migraines, nausea, and respiratory problems. The leak raised concerns about health and safety risks from other storage sites. In 2017, GAO recommended that PHMSA take actions, including using baseline data to develop performance goals for its natural gas storage program.
GAO was asked to review the health and environmental effects of activities at natural gas storage sites. This report, among other objectives, (1) assesses the extent to which PHMSA has developed its natural gas storage inspection program and (2) describes what is known about the potential health effects from chemicals in stored natural gas. GAO reviewed available documents about natural gas storage incidents from 2000 through 2018; compared PHMSA research, goals, and plans against leading planning practices; visited sites representing the three types of storage sites; and interviewed agency officials."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making two recommendations, including that PHMSA should analyze factors affecting states' willingness to partner with PHMSA and analyze its workforce needs on an ongoing basis. The agency concurred with the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-167?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Maternal & Child Home Visiting Program
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting program's maintenance of effort requirement. The report (GAO-19-645) is titled "Maternal and Child Home Visiting Program: HHS Determined That States Generally Met the Maintenance of Effort Requirement".The report was sent to Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Indiana, ranking member of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Worker and Family Support, and Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Nebraska, on Sept. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting program's maintenance of effort requirement. The report (GAO-19-645) is titled "Maternal and Child Home Visiting Program: HHS Determined That States Generally Met the Maintenance of Effort Requirement". The report was sent to Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Indiana, ranking member of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Worker and Family Support, and Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Nebraska, on Sept. 17. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report. What GAOFound: "From fiscal years 2016 through 2018, state reported maintenance of effort (MOE) spending varied from $0 to more than $25 million for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program, according to GAO's review of MIECHV program grant applications. The program's authorizing statute requires states to meet an MOE requirement. MOE requirements in federal programs generally require grantees to maintain a certain level of spending to ensure grantee dollars are not replaced with federal dollars. To demonstrate their compliance with the MIECHV program's MOE requirement, states report in their annual grant applications their MOE spending for the prior fiscal year.
HHS determined that states generally met the MIECHV program's MOE requirement because states did not replace state funds with federal funds, including states that reported no MOE spending or decreased MOE spending. States may be permitted to report $0 in MOE spending in certain circumstances; for example, if a state's only home visiting spending was on programs that did not meet MIECHV program criteria. According to HHS officials, state-reported decreases in MOE spending were due to errors in calculations that were subsequently corrected, clarifications to HHS's MOE guidance, or because of circumstances outside of the state agency's control.
HHS uses multiple methods to monitor state compliance with the MOE requirement, according to GAO's review of HHS documentation and interviews with HHS officials. The agency's monitoring strategy includes reviews of grant applications, reviews of state single audits, and operational site visits, among other techniques. According to HHS officials, grant application reviews are the primary mechanism used to monitor state compliance, through which HHS compares state-reported MOE spending in grant applications across two fiscal years to determine if states maintained their level of spending. In addition, HHS identifies and resolves issues with state-reported MOE spending through its operational site visits and the agency's review of state single audits."
Why GAO Did This Study: "The MIECHV program provides grants to states to support evidence-based home visiting services for at-risk pregnant women and parents with young children. HHS was appropriated $400 million per year for the MIECHV grant program for fiscal years 2018 through 2022. Families volunteer to participate in the MIECHV program and are provided regular home visits and support services from a nurse, social worker, or other professional. According to HHS, the program builds upon decades of scientific research showing that home visits during pregnancy and early childhood can improve the lives of children and families. States began receiving federal MIECHV program funds in fiscal year 2010, but many states provided home visiting services prior to the MIECHV program using state or other funds. To meet the program's MOE requirement, states are required to maintain home visiting spending that meets MIECHV program criteria. GAO was asked to review the MIECHV program's MOE requirement.
GAO examined (1) what is known about the MOE spending reported by states that receive federal MIECHV program funds and (2) how HHS monitors states to ensure the MOE requirement is met. GAO reviewed MIECHV program notices of funding opportunity for fiscal years 2013 through 2018 and state grant applications for fiscal years 2016 through 2018, the most recent three years available. GAO also reviewed HHS grants monitoring documentation and interviewed HHS officials."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-645?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Costs to Administer Work Requirements in Approved Medicaid Demonstrations
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on states' estimates of administrative costs to implement work requirements in approved Medicaid demonstrations. The report (GAO-20-149) is titled "Medicaid Demonstrations: Actions Needed to Address Weaknesses in Oversight of Costs to Administer Work Requirements".The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Oct. 1. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on states' estimates of administrative costs to implement work requirements in approved Medicaid demonstrations. The report (GAO-20-149) is titled "Medicaid Demonstrations: Actions Needed to Address Weaknesses in Oversight of Costs to Administer Work Requirements". The report was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Oct. 1. Here are excerpts of summaries associated withthe report.
What GAO Found: "Medicaid demonstrations enable states to test new approaches to provide Medicaid coverage and services. Since January 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has approved nine states' demonstrations that require beneficiaries to work or participate in other activities, such as training, in order to maintain Medicaid eligibility. The first five states that received CMS approval for work requirements reported a range of administrative activities to implement these requirements.
These five states provided GAO with estimates of their demonstrations' administrative costs, which varied, ranging from under $10 million to over $250 million. Factors such as differences in changes to information technology systems and numbers of beneficiaries subject to the requirements may have contributed to the variation. The estimates do not include all costs, such as ongoing costs states expect to incur throughout the demonstration.
GAO found weaknesses in CMS's oversight of the administrative costs of demonstrations with work requirements.
No consideration of administrative costs during approval. GAO found that CMS does not require states to provide projections of administrative costs when requesting demonstration approval. Thus, the cost of administering demonstrations, including those with work requirements, is not transparent to the public or included in CMS's assessments of whether a demonstration is budget neutral--that is, that federal spending will be no higher under the demonstration than it would have been without it.
Current procedures may be insufficient to ensure that costs are allowable and matched at the correct rate. GAO found that three of the five states received CMS approval for federal funds--in one case, tens of millions of dollars--for administrative costs that did not appear allowable or at higher matching rates than appeared appropriate per CMS guidance. The agency has not assessed the sufficiency of its procedures for overseeing administrative costs since it began approving demonstrations with work requirements.
Why GAO Did This Study
Section 1115 demonstrations are a significant component of Medicaid spending and affect the care of millions of low-income and medically needy individuals. In 2018, CMS announced a new policy allowing states to test work requirements under demonstrations and soon after began approving such demonstrations. Implementing work requirements can involve various administrative activities, not all of which are eligible for federal funds.
GAO was asked to examine the administrative costs of demonstrations with work requirements. Among other things, this report examines (1) states' estimates of costs of administering work requirements in selected states, and (2) CMS's oversight of these costs. GAO examined the costs of administering work requirements in the first five states with approved demonstrations. GAO also reviewed documentation for these states' demonstrations, and interviewed state and federal Medicaid officials. Additionally, GAO assessed CMS's policies and procedures against federal internal control standards."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO makes three recommendations, including that CMS (1) require states to submit projections of administrative costs with demonstration proposals, and (2) assess risks of providing federal funds that are not allowable to administer work requirements and improve oversight procedures, as warranted. CMS did not concur with the recommendations and stated that its procedures are sufficient given the level of risk. GAO maintains that the recommendations are warranted as discussed in this report."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-149?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on FEMA Wildfire Response, Recovery Efforts
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the assistance Federal Emergency Management Agency provided to jurisdictions in response to major disaster declarations stemming from wildfires from 2015 through 2018. The report (GAO-20-5) is titled "Wildfire Disasters: FEMA Could Take Additional Actions to Address Unique Response and Recovery Challenges".The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on the assistance Federal Emergency Management Agency provided to jurisdictions in response to major disaster declarations stemming from wildfires from 2015 through 2018. The report (GAO-20-5) is titled "Wildfire Disasters: FEMA Could Take Additional Actions to Address Unique Response and Recovery Challenges". The report was sent to Sen. Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, chairman, Sen. Gary Peters, D-Michigan, ranking member of the Senate Homeland Securityand Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, chairman of the Senate Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Maryland, chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, chairman, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Missouri, ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, D-New York, chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, D-Missouri, Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Texas, Rep. Gary J. Palmer, R-Louisiana, and Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Missouri, on Oct. 9. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "For wildfire-related major disaster declarations from 2015 through 2018, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)--consistent with its authorities and responsibilities--helped state and local officials obtain and coordinate federal resources to provide for the needs of wildfire survivors and execute recovery efforts. This support totalled over $2.4 billion and included providing staff to assist at Emergency Operations Centers and establishing Disaster Recovery Centers to coordinate disaster assistance services for survivors. In addition, FEMA provided Public Assistance grant funds to local jurisdictions to help address community infrastructure needs, such as debris removal. FEMA also assigned federal agencies to perform various missions to help with response and recovery--for example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was assigned with contracting for debris removal services in some instances.
Officials from jurisdictions that GAO spoke with described practices that aided in wildfire response and recovery, but also reported experiencing challenges. Specifically, officials in affected areas noted that collaboration between FEMA and California's Office of Emergency Services allowed for timely information sharing, and FEMA's assistance at Disaster Recovery Centers greatly assisted survivors in obtaining necessary services. Among the challenges cited were onerous documentation requirements for FEMA's Public Assistance grant program and locating temporary housing for survivors whose homes were completely destroyed. In addition, the unique challenge of removing wildfire debris led to confusion over soil excavation standards and led to overexcavation on some homeowners' lots, lengthening the rebuilding process.
FEMA has developed an after-action report identifying lessons learned from the October and December 2017 wildfires, but could benefit from a more comprehensive assessment of its operations to determine if additional actions are needed to ensure that policies and procedures are best suited to prepare for future wildfires. The combination of recent devastating wildfires and projections for increased wildfire activity suggest a potential change in FEMA's operating environment. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government , such changes should be analyzed and addressed to help ensure that agencies maintain their effectiveness."
Why GAO Did This Study: "In 2017 and 2018, deadly wildfires struck the state of California, tragically resulting in 159 deaths and over 32,000 structures destroyed. FEMA, as the lead federal agency for responding to and recovering from disasters, has obligated about $2 billion in housing, debris removal, and other assistance following these disasters. According to recent environmental assessments, fire seasons are increasing in length, putting more people and infrastructure at risk.
GAO was asked to assess a range of response and recovery issues related to the 2017 disasters. Specifically, this report addresses (1) the assistance FEMA provided to jurisdictions in response to major disaster declarations stemming from wildfires from 2015 through 2018, (2) selected jurisdictions' perspectives on FEMA wildfire response and recovery efforts, and (3) the extent to which FEMA has identified and addressed key lessons learned. GAO obtained data on FEMA wildfire disaster assistance and statistics on fire damages and fatalities; reviewed key documentation, such as incident action plans and after action reports; and interviewed officials from FEMA headquarters and regional offices, states, and a nonprobability sample of affected local jurisdictions (e.g., counties)."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO recommends that FEMA comprehensively assess operations to identify additional updates to policies and procedures that could enhance future wildfire response and recovery efforts. The Department of Homeland Security agreed with our recommendation."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-5?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Medicare Spending for Disposable Wound Care Devices in Home Health
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Medicare home health utilization and spending for disposable negative pressure wound therapy devices. The report (GAO-20-42) is titled "Medicare: Spending on Certain Disposable Wound Care Devices in Home Health".The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on Medicare home health utilization and spending for disposable negative pressure wound therapy devices. The report (GAO-20-42) is titled "Medicare: Spending on Certain Disposable Wound Care Devices in Home Health". The report was sent to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-New Jersey, chairman, Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Massachusetts,chairman, and Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, on Oct. 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, provided for a separate payment to Medicare home health agencies for the furnishing of disposable negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) devices as of January 1, 2017. NPWT devices covered under Medicare's home health benefit are used to treat a number of specific conditions, including pressure and diabetic ulcers, and certain wounds initially treated in an inpatient setting. NPWT devices involve the application of an airtight dressing on the wound, which is then connected through tubing to a NPWT device that applies negative pressure, or suction, to remove fluid and debris from the wound to promote healing. Disposable NPWT devices are designed for single use over a period of days or weeks, and more than one disposable device may be needed during the course of wound healing treatment (see figure).
View figure at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-42R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
From January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, Medicare covered 3,978 disposable NPWT devices furnished by home health agencies, with spending, including beneficiary coinsurance, totaling $923,340. Of this total amount, Medicare paid $735,490, and the average payment per furnished device was $185. Medicare beneficiaries are responsible for a 20 percent coinsurance payment for disposable NPWT devices. The average total coinsurance amount beneficiaries paid for the disposable NPWT devices they received was $553, with an average payment amount of $47 per furnished device.
Outside of Medicare, GAO found limited coverage for disposable NPWT devices for use in the home, based on its review of publicly available medical policies and coverage information. For the five selected state Medicaid programs that GAO reviewed, the publicly available information we reviewed did not explicitly establish coverage for disposable NPWT devices. Most of the eight commercial insurers GAO reviewed do not currently cover home use of disposable NPWT devices.
We provided a draft of this correspondence to the Department of Health and Human Services for review and comment, and it did not have any comments."
Why GAO Did This Study: "Medicare covers durable medical equipment (DME) that can be used in the home and has an expected lifetime of at least 3 years, among other criteria. Disposable devices are generally not covered by Medicare for use in the home because they are not considered durable, with the exception of disposable NPWT devices, which are covered under Medicare's home health benefit.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, included a provision for GAO to report to Congress on the effect of paying for disposable NPWT devices under the Medicare home health benefit and provide information on state Medicaid agency and commercial insurer coverage of disposable NPWT devices. This report describes Medicare home health utilization and spending for disposable NPWT devices, and other payer coverage of disposable NPWT devices. GAO analyzed Medicare home health claims data for the period of January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018--the most recent data at the time of our review; interviewed Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services officials and stakeholders, including home health and DME associations and device manufacturers; and reviewed publicly available medical policies and coverage information for five state Medicaid programs and eight commercial insurers. GAO selected the state Medicaid programs and commercial insurers based on high beneficiary enrollment, as well as information on disposable NPWT coverage provided by stakeholders."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-42R?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
GAO Issues Report on Succession Planning Policies at VA
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on succession planning policies and guidance at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The report (GAO-20-15) is titled "Department of Veterans Affairs: Improved Succession Planning Would Help Address Long-Standing Workforce Problems".The report was sent to Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, chairman, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Rep. Mark Takano, D-California, chairman, and Rep. David P. Roe, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, on ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 -- The Government Accountability Office has issued a report on succession planning policies and guidance at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The report (GAO-20-15) is titled "Department of Veterans Affairs: Improved Succession Planning Would Help Address Long-Standing Workforce Problems". The report was sent to Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia, chairman, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Rep. Mark Takano, D-California, chairman, and Rep. David P. Roe, R-Tennessee, ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, onOct. 10. Here are excerpts of summaries associated with the report.
What GAO Found: "The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) have not fully incorporated key succession planning leading practices (see table).
View table at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-15?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
VA lacks a current, department-wide succession plan. According to VA officials, VA has not produced a department-wide succession plan since 2009 due to leadership turnover. VA officials said the 2009 plan does not reflect their current succession planning efforts. Establishing a succession plan would help VA identify and develop high-potential staff to meet VA's mission over the long term.
VHA's succession plan is consistent with some leading practices, but our prior work found that VHA's physician staffing data are incomplete. Also, VHA performs limited monitoring and evaluation of its plans. Additional monitoring and evaluation could help VHA assess the effectiveness of its strategies in achieving its goals.
VBA's plan includes some analysis of workforce gaps for mission-critical occupations. However, VBA's plan does not address leadership positions or fully incorporate key leading practices for mission-critical occupations, such as veterans claims examiners. Developing a succession planning process for leadership positions and fully incorporating key leading practices into its existing processes could help VBA better meet its current and future workforce needs.
VA has not updated its succession planning directive since 2003 and VA officials told us that the directive does not incorporate legal requirements put in place since then. The directive establishes requirements and responsibilities for succession planning across VA. VA officials stated that they have not updated the directive because of leadership turnover and changes in legal requirements. Updating the directive could help to ensure it reflects relevant legal requirements. In addition, we found that VA, VHA, and VBA do not follow all of the requirements outlined in the directive. Updating the directive could help to clarify and recommunicate succession planning roles and responsibilities across the department."
Why GAO Did This Study: "VA operates one of the largest health care delivery systems in the nation and provides billions of dollars in benefits and services to veterans and their families. However, VA faces serious and long-standing problems with management challenges and veterans' access to care and disability benefits. For example, as of December 2018, VA reported an overall staff vacancy rate of 11 percent at VHA medical facilities, including vacancies of more than 24,000 medical and dental positions, and around 900 human resource positions. Ensuring VA, VHA, and VBA have a pipeline of talent to fill leadership positions and mission-critical occupations is key to addressing these challenges.
The VA Choice and Quality Employment Act of 2017 includes a provision for GAO to review succession planning policies and guidance at VA and its administrations. This report addresses the extent to which succession planning policies and procedures at VA, VHA, and VBA are consistent with key leading practices. GAO reviewed agency documents related to succession planning for leadership positions and mission-critical occupations, and interviewed agency officials. To identify key leading practices.
GAO reviewed agency documents related to succession planning for leadership positions and mission-critical occupations, and interviewed agency officials. To identify key leading practices, GAO reviewed GAO's past work and Office of Personnel Management guidance."
What GAO Recommends: "GAO is making four recommendations. VA should develop a department-wide succession plan and update its succession planning directive. VHA and VBA should fully incorporate key leading practices for succession planning. VA agreed with the recommendations."
The text of the GAO report is available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-15?utm_campaign=usgao_email&utm_content=daybook&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery