United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

9:30 a.m.

Thursday,

September 24, 1998

YEAR 2000 COMPUTING

CRISIS

Leadership Needed to

Collect and Disseminate

Critical Biomedical

Equipment Information

Statement of Joel C. Willemssen

Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems

Accounting and Information Management Division

GAO/T-AIMD-98-310

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to discuss the Year 2000 compliance

status of biomedical equipment.1

 The question of whether medical devices

such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems, x-ray machines,

pacemakers, and cardiac monitoring equipment can be counted on to

work reliably on and after January 1, 2000, is obviously of critical

importance to our nation’s health care. To the extent that biomedical

equipment uses computer chips, it is vulnerable to the Year 2000 problem

that we and others have been focusing on for over a year.2

 In the medical

arena, such vulnerability carries with it possible safety risks.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)—specifically, the Veterans Health

Administration (VHA)—is attempting to determine the Year 2000

compliance status of biomedical equipment in use in its medical centers,

outpatient clinics, nursing homes, and domiciliaries. Within the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) oversees and regulates medical devices in the private

sector. Both organizations are employing the same strategy: relying on

information provided by equipment manufacturers. Our report being

released at this hearing details the status of VHA’s and FDA’s biomedical

equipment programs.3

In brief, VHA has made progress in implementing its Year 2000 strategy for

biomedical equipment, but it still does not know how pervasive the

problem is. This is because it has not received compliance and cost

information from many of the manufacturers on its list of suppliers, as

well as from the nearly 100 additional manufacturers no longer in

business. Like VHA, FDA has sent letters to biomedical equipment

manufacturers, requesting information on products affected by the Year

2000 problem. The response rate to FDA has been disappointing. Failure to

obtain timely compliance information from the manufacturers increases

the risk to health care providers and biomedical equipment users that such

1

Biomedical equipment refers both to medical devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA), and scientific and research instruments, which are not subject to FDA regulation.

2

The Year 2000 problem will affect everyone because it is rooted in how dates are recorded and

computed. For the past several decades, computer systems have typically used two digits to represent

the year, such as “98” for 1998, in order to conserve electronic data storage and reduce operating costs.

In this format, however, 2000 is indistinguishable from 1900 because both are represented as “00.” As a

result, if not modified, systems or applications that use dates or perform date- or time-sensitive

calculations may generate incorrect results beyond 1999. A listing of our publications on the Year 2000

problem is included as an attachment to this statement.

3

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Compliance Status of Many Biomedical Equipment Items Still Unknown

(GAO/AIMD-98-240, September 18, 1998).

Page 1 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
equipment may not operate properly after the turn of the century. It is

critical that such information be obtained and publicized; while many

reported noncompliant equipment items do not present a risk to patient

safety, some could present such risks.

My testimony today will discuss (1) the progress that VHA and FDA have

made in determining the compliance status of biomedical equipment and

(2) further actions they need to take to minimize associated Year 2000

risks.

Background Biomedical equipment is indispensable; it plays a central role in virtually

all health care. It can be defined as any tool that can record, process,

analyze, display, and/or transmit medical data—some of which may even

be implanted in patients—and laboratory research instruments, such as

blood gas and glucose analyzers. Such equipment may use a computer for

calibration or for day-to-day operation. If any type of date or time

calculation is performed, susceptibility to a Year 2000 problem exists,

whether the computer is a personal computer that connects to the

equipment remotely or a microprocessor chip embedded within the

equipment. This could range from the more benign—such as incorrect

formatting of a printout—to the most serious—incorrect operation of

equipment with the potential to decrease patient safety. The degree of risk

depends on the role of the equipment in the patient’s care.

As a health care provider, VHA is a key stakeholder in determining the

potential effect the Year 2000 computer problem could have on its

biomedical equipment. Because VHA, like other health care providers in the

private and public sectors, relies on manufacturers to validate, test, and

certify that their equipment is compliant, it is critical that manufacturers

provide this information so that VHA may take prompt action on

noncompliant equipment in its inventory. Another key stakeholder in

determining the status of equipment compliance is FDA, which has

oversight and regulatory responsibility for domestic and imported medical

devices.

VHA: Progress, but

Significant Risks

Remain

VHA’s strategy for identifying and remedying noncompliant biomedical

equipment comprises five steps: (1) increased awareness and continual

education of VHA chief information officers (CIO), the Veterans Integrated

Service Networks (VISN),4

 and health care facilities on biomedical issues,

4

There are 22 VISNs, which encompass 172 VHA medical centers, 376 outpatient clinics, 133 nursing

homes, and 30 domiciliaries—a total of 711 facilities.

Page 2 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
(2) establishment of an expert working group to provide guidance,

(3) development of a database of biomedical equipment manufacturers

that supply equipment to VHA, (4) surveying of these manufacturers to

identify compliance status and solutions for noncompliant items, and

(5) communication of survey results to the field for use in determining the

compliance status of biomedical equipment at medical facilities.5

Much of the rationale behind VHA’s reliance on biomedical equipment

manufacturers to validate, test, and certify that their equipment is Year

2000 compliant stems from the position taken by some manufacturers that

VHA should not attempt to conduct in-depth testing by manipulating the

software embedded inside the equipment. According to a VHA official, such

testing could void the manufacturer’s certification to FDA that the

equipment is safe for use on patients, thereby exposing VHA to legal

liability in the event that a patient’s health is harmed by equipment that

malfunctions following VHA testing.

As part of VHA’s strategy, its Year 2000 Project Office sent a series of letters

to biomedical equipment manufacturers requesting Year 2000 compliance

status information. The first letter was sent on September 9, 1997, to

approximately 1,600 manufacturers in VHA’s database of suppliers.

Follow-up letters were subsequently sent in October and November 1997

and June 1998 to those not previously responding. Upon receipt of

responses to these letters, VHA categorized the compliance status provided

by the manufacturers for equipment items, as illustrated in table 1.

5

On a monthly basis, each medical facility is expected to report to VHA’s Year 2000 Project Office its

strategies for dealing with noncompliant and conditional-compliant equipment in its inventory (see

table 1 for definition), and the cost to accomplish this.

Page 3 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
Table 1: VHA Biomedical Equipment

Compliance Categories Category Explanation

Compliant Equipment will function properly in all aspects upon

the change to the year 2000, without any modification

or revision.

Noncompliant Equipment will not function properly upon the change

to the year 2000, and no manufacturer remedy is

available. In some cases, improper function involves

an incorrect date-time stamp on the output of the

equipment, but the equipment’s clinical function is not

impaired.

Conditional-compliant Equipment requires some form of user intervention to

function properly after the year 2000. Such intervention

includes the installation of manufacturer-provided

software or hardware or a one-time user action (such

as turning the equipment on and off after the year

2000).

Pending Manufacturers reported to VHA that they have not

completed the Year 2000 assessment of their product

line.

Source: Veterans Health Administration.

As shown in table 2, manufacturers have provided VHA with compliance

information on a wide range of biomedical equipment.

Page 4 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
Table 2: Reported Biomedical

Equipment Year 2000 Compliance

Categories, as of June 1, 1998, With

Examples

Compliance category

Number of

manufacturers

Number of

equipment

“types”

within this

category

Examples of equipment

“types” within this

categorya

Compliant

694 3,873

Examples: intra-aortic

balloon pump, dialysis

machine

Noncompliant

34 182

Examples: defibrillator

monitor, cardiology monitor

Conditional-compliant

102 673

Examples:

electrocardiograph

machine, defibrillator

Pending

53 157

Examples: ultrasound

system, ventilator

Manufacturer merged or bought

out 187 b

Total 1,070 4,885

aInclusion of a specific type of biomedical equipment in the compliant, noncompliant,

conditional-compliant, or pending category does not necessarily mean that all equipment of this

type in VHA’s inventory was reported by the manufacturer; similar equipment made by other

manufacturers could fall into different categories.

bThe biomedical equipment reported by these manufacturers has already been accounted for in

one of the above compliance categories.

Source: Veterans Health Administration. We did not independently verify these data.

Of the nearly 1,600 manufacturers in VHA’s initial mailing over a year ago,

about 100 were no longer in business, and a small number responded that

the Year 2000 issue did not apply to their products. Accordingly, VHA

revised its list of manufacturers to 1,490 as of July 29, 1998; it received

compliance status information from about 1,100 (73 percent) of these

manufacturers. As shown in table 3, just under half of the 1,490 reported

that all of their devices were Year 2000 compliant.

Page 5 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
Table 3: Status of Manufacturer

Responses as of July 29, 1998 Status of response Number of manufacturers

Compliant manufacturersa 701

Noncompliant manufacturersb 43

Conditional-compliant manufacturersc 106

Pending manufacturersd 47

Manufacturer merged or bought out 195

Nonresponsive manufacturerse 398

Total 1,490

aFor inclusion in this category, 100 percent of a manufacturer’s products had to be considered

compliant.

bFor inclusion in this category, only one of a manufacturer’s products had to be considered

noncompliant.

cFor inclusion in this category, the manufacturer had to have no noncompliant equipment, no

pending equipment, and at least one conditional-compliant equipment item.

dFor inclusion in this category, the manufacturer had to have no noncompliant equipment and at

least one equipment item pending.

eFor inclusion in this category, VHA had to have received no compliance information from the

manufacturer.

Source: Veterans Health Administration. We did not independently verify these data.

VHA did not receive responses from 398 manufacturers. According to a VHA

official, letters sent to 227 of these manufacturers were returned by the

U.S. Postal Service marked “no forwarding address.” Further, as noted in

table 3, an additional 47 manufacturers that did respond are in the pending

category because they reported that they had not completed their

assessments and therefore did not yet know if their products were

compliant. Among the manufacturers who have yet to respond or

complete their assessments is one who supplies high-dollar, high-value

equipment, such as radiology systems and electronic imaging systems, to

VHA.

According to VHA officials, most of the manufacturers that reported one or

more of their biomedical equipment products as noncompliant cited

incorrect display of date and/or time as the main problems. For example, a

noncompliant electrocardiograph machine, used to monitor heart signals,

would print charts with two-digit dates, showing the year 2000 as “00.”

According to a VHA official, these cases do not generally lead to the

Page 6 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
device’s failing to operate and do not present a risk to patient safety

because health care providers, such as physicians and nurses, are able to

work around such problems.

Conversely, VHA recognizes that incorrect date-time representation or use

could pose a risk when the date is used in a calculation or when records

generated by the equipment are sorted automatically to present a patient’s

condition, over a period of time, to a physician for diagnosis and

treatment. Specifically, when records are sorted by date of recording, the

accuracy of such dates can be critical to a physician’s monitoring of

patient progress in, for example, the case of blood sugar readings. If

readings were taken, for example, on December 25, 27, and 30, 1999, and

again on January 1, 2000, the ordering might appear with the last entry

first, if it were abbreviated as “00” and read as January 1, 1900. If the

physician or other clinician did not pay close attention, a diagnosis or

treatment decision could be made based on a misreading of the data trend.

VHA also recognizes that an equipment function that depends on a

calculation involving a date, and that is performed incorrectly as a result

of a date problem, could present a risk to the patient. One example

reported by a manufacturer is a product used for planning the delivery of

radiation treatment using a radioactive isotope as the source. An error in

the calculation of the radiation source’s strength on the day the therapy is

to be delivered could result in inappropriate treatment—either too low or

too high a dosage —and could have an adverse effect on the patient.

Therefore, until VHA receives compliance information from all of its

manufacturers, it will be stymied from making decisions as to whether to

replace, retire, or continue to use certain biomedical equipment items in

its inventory.

Another area of concern is the lack of complete cost information for the

replacement or retirement of noncompliant equipment. Last month, VA

estimated this cost at $40 million.6 This estimate, however, was not based

on updated cost information from medical facilities, and VHA did not know

the replacement and repair cost for biomedical equipment for the

manufacturers that have not yet reported compliance and cost

information, as well as for the nearly 100 manufacturers no longer in

business. VHA has acknowledged the shortcomings of its cost estimate, and

just recently began using a new reporting process to capture the cost to

replace or repair its noncompliant equipment.

6

We did not independently verify the $40 million cost estimate.

Page 7 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
In light of the uncertainties surrounding the compliance status of VHA’s

biomedical equipment and the potential effect on patient health and safety,

it is crucial that VHA medical facilities develop business continuity and

contingency plans to minimize risks associated with the Year 2000

problem. VHA’s medical facilities have not completed plans of this type, and

its Year 2000 Project Office has not finalized a contingency plan guidebook

to assist the medical facilities in their attempts to come to terms with this

risk.

FDA: Limited

Progress in

Determining

Compliance Status of

Biomedical

Equipment

To assist health care facilities in the public and private sectors, HHS—on

behalf of the CIO Council’s Subcommittee on the Year 2000 for Biomedical

Equipment and FDA—sent letters to approximately 16,000 biomedical

equipment manufacturers7

 in January of this year, requesting information

on the Year 2000 compliance of their complete product line. On June 29,

FDA sent a second letter to 1,935 medical device manufacturers that had

not previously responded to its inquiry and that FDA believed had products

that might employ computers or embedded systems. After being provided

to FDA, this information was to be made available to the public and to

government purchasers and users of these products through an Internet

World Wide Web page.

The response rate to these letters has been disappointing; as of July 30,

1998, only about 12 percent (1,975 out of 16,000 letters) had responded. Of

the 628 manufacturers reporting that their products do employ a date/time

function, about 100 indicated that one or more of their products was not

compliant.

According to FDA, it does not perform technical evaluations of

manufacturers’ responses to determine their adequacy. Rather, it reviews

the responses only to determine whether all questions posed in the letters

were answered. This may explain why FDA’s web page includes this

disclaimer:

“Inclusion of information in this database indicates that the manufacturer has certified that

the data is complete and accurate. The Food and Drug Administration, however, cannot

7

FDA developed its mailing list from manufacturers that have registered their products with FDA and

from the mailing lists of two scientific and research instrument manufacturing associations.

Accordingly, this list included manufacturers that do not employ computers or embedded systems in

their products (e.g., products such as rubber gloves, tongue depressors, and eyeglasses).

Page 8 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
and does not make any independent assurances or guarantees as to the accuracy or

completeness of this data.”8

Further, except for diagnostic x-ray equipment, FDA does not test new

medical devices entering the market. It also does not test devices for Year

2000 compliance. According to an FDA official, the agency does review the

test results submitted by manufacturers requesting pre-market approval of

their medical devices to see whether the manufacturers have

demonstrated that their products are safe and effective for their intended

uses. However, FDA does not plan to request test results from

manufacturers that have renovated medical devices and/or scientific and

research instruments that are not Year 2000 compliant. Accordingly, no

assurances exist that manufacturers’ compliance certifications are

accurate.

While FDA is making compliance information from biomedical equipment

manufacturers available to the public, some users have expressed concern

that information on the FDA web site is not detailed enough to be useful.

Specifically, FDA’s list of compliant equipment contains no information on

the equipment’s make or model. In contrast, VHA’s list of compliant

equipment generally contains such information.

Further, the Year 2000 compliance information publicly available through

FDA does not include responses from many of the manufacturers that have

responded to VHA. For example, we selected, on a random basis, a sample

of 53 manufacturers in VHA’s database that reported their products to be

Year 2000 compliant; 48 of them were not listed in the FDA database. We

likewise selected a sample of 13 manufacturers in VHA’s database that

reported that their products were not Year 2000 compliant; 12 of these

were not listed in the FDA database. These manufacturers’ products include

cardiology equipment, defibrillator monitors, and ultrasound equipment.

An FDA official acknowledged that the biomedical equipment

manufacturers were more responsive to VHA’s requests for compliance

information. He stated his belief that the primary reason for this was VHA’s

position as a large-volume customer that could take future action toward

the manufacturer if information was not forthcoming. He also noted that

FDA requested information on manufacturers’ complete product lines,

while VHA requested information from manufacturers only on its list of

suppliers.

8

Food and Drug Administration, Year 2000 Impact on Biomedical Equipment (Washington, D.C., FDA),

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/yr2000/y2kintro.html (cited March 19, 1998).

Page 9 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
VHA Plans to Make

Compliance

Information Available

to the Public

Unlike FDA, VHA has not made information from biomedical equipment

manufacturers available via the Internet. This is because (1) when VHA

requested the information from manufacturers, it did not disclose its

intention to release it outside of the federal government and (2) VHA had

concerns regarding the possibly proprietary nature of some of the

information provided.

VHA is currently in the process of resolving these concerns. Specifically, on

the advice of VA’s Acting General Counsel, VHA informed manufacturers in

a June 1998 letter that it plans to release information that the

manufacturers provided and that VHA has determined not to be

confidential commercial information. This is an important step, as

compliance information from biomedical equipment manufacturers is of

interest to all health care providers and users.

VA has not yet decided how and when a clearinghouse of compliance

information provided to VHA from manufacturers will be made available to

the public. FDA and VA have, however, discussed using FDA’s web site as

such a clearinghouse.

Further Actions

Needed to Minimize

Risks of Year 2000

Failures

Given that some noncompliant biomedical equipment items could pose a

risk to patient safety and that the Year 2000 compliance status of many

equipment items in its inventory is unknown, VHA may not be able to

handle Year 2000 failures affecting its biomedical equipment. Because of

this, in our report being released today we recommend that the Secretary

of Veterans Affairs direct the Under Secretary for Health to provide a Year

2000 contingency guidebook for biomedical equipment to all VHA medical

facilities, and ensure that they complete Year 2000 business continuity and

contingency planning for all biomedical equipment in their inventories.

It is also crucial that all health care providers and users of biomedical

equipment have access to compliance information from the manufacturers

in order that they may take prompt action on noncompliant and

conditional-compliant equipment in their inventories. Accordingly, we

recommend that the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Health and Human

Services work together in developing a single data clearinghouse that

provides compliance information to all users of biomedical equipment.

Model-specific information should be included, along with the names of

equipment manufacturers that have not responded, manufacturers that are

no longer in business, and those that have not provided test results

Page 10 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
certifying Year 2000 compliance. VA and HHS have generally agreed to

implement this recommendation.

HHS, however, stated its belief that it is neither necessary nor cost-effective

to list all compliant products. It asserted that information at the individual

model level is only needed for noncompliant products. We disagree.

Model-specific information will provide users with detailed data on the

reported compliance status of their products, especially for those

manufacturers that VA has determined to have merged or been bought out

by other manufacturers. In this way, rather than taking it on faith that all

of a manufacturer’s equipment has been deemed compliant, users will

have greater assurance by seeing the specific model number listed.

Last, because health care providers rely on manufacturers to validate, test,

and certify that their equipment is compliant, there are no assurances that

manufacturers have adequately addressed the Year 2000 problem for

noncompliant equipment, especially since FDA does not require

manufacturers to submit test results certifying compliance. To address this

concern, we recommend that the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and

Health and Human Services, in conjunction with VA’s Under Secretary for

Health and the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration,

(1) determine what actions should be taken regarding biomedical

equipment manufacturers that have not responded to their requests for

compliance information, (2) determine what actions are needed to address

equipment produced by manufacturers no longer in business, (3) take

prudent steps to review test results for critical care/life support equipment

once determined to be noncompliant but now judged by the

manufacturers to be compliant, and (4) determine what legislative,

regulatory, or other changes are necessary to obtain assurances that the

manufacturers’ equipment is compliant, including performing independent

verification and validation of the manufacturers’ certifications.

VA stated that it has no legislative or regulatory authority to implement the

recommendation and deferred to HHS. HHS agreed to implement two

components of the recommendation: specifically, to determine the actions

that should be taken with respect to those manufacturers who fail to

respond to requests for compliance information, and to include in the

clearinghouse database the identity of defunct manufacturers, along with

the known types, makes, and models of devices that they manufactured. It

did not agree to reviewing test results supporting manufacturers’

certifications. It stated that the submission of appropriate certifications of

compliance is sufficient to ensure that the certifying manufacturers are in

Page 11 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
compliance. We disagree that this is sufficient. Through independent

reviews of the manufacturers’ test results, users of the medical devices are

provided with a greater level of confidence that the devices are Year 2000

compliant.

In summary, VHA and FDA do not yet know the full extent of the Year 2000

problem with biomedical equipment because they have not received

compliance information from many of the manufacturers. Further, they

have not reviewed test results supporting manufacturers’ certifications to

provide the American public with a high level of confidence that

biomedical equipment will work as intended. While some aspects of

equipment noncompliance may not affect patient safety, some may; we do

not know for sure. Therefore, VHA and FDA need to work together—along

with others in the health care industry—to make this information available

to the public quickly so that appropriate action can be taken to remedy

any potential risks to patient safety.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be pleased to respond

to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may

have at this time.

Page 12 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
Page 13 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
Page 14 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
Attachment 

GAO Reports and Testimony Addressing the

Year 2000 Crisis

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Reserve Is Acting to Ensure Financial

Institutions Are Fixing Systems, But Challenges Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-248,

September 17, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Depository Institution Regulators Are

Making Progress, But Challenges Remain (GAO/T-AIMD-98-305, September 17,

1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Progress Made at Department of Labor, But

Key Systems at Risk (GAO/T-AIMD-98-303, September 17, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Significant Risks Remain to Department of

Education’s Student Financial Aid Systems (GAO/T-AIMD-98-302,

September 17, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Severity of Problem Calls for Strong

Leadership and Effective Partnerships (GAO/T-AIMD-98-278, September 3,

1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships

Needed to Reduce Likelihood of Adverse Impact (GAO/T-AIMD-98-277,

September 2, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships

Needed to Mitigate Risks (GAO/T-AIMD-98-276, September 1, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: State Department Needs To Make

Fundamental Improvements To Its Year 2000 Program (GAO/AIMD-98-162,

August 28, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing: EFT 99 Is Not Expected to Affect Year 2000

Remediation Efforts (GAO/AIMD-98-272R, August 28, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Progress Made in Compliance of VA Systems,

But Concerns Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-237, August 21, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Avoiding Major Disruptions Will Require

Strong Leadership and Effective Partnerships (GAO/T-AIMD-98-267, August 19,

1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Partnerships Needed

to Address Risk of Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-98-266, August 17, 1998).

Page 15 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
Attachment 

GAO Reports and Testimony Addressing the

Year 2000 Crisis

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Partnerships Needed

to Mitigate Risk of Major Disruptions (GAO/T-AIMD-98-262, August 13, 1998).

FAA Systems: Serious Challenges Remain in Resolving Year 2000 and

Computer Security Problems (GAO/T-AIMD-98-251, August 6, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and Contingency

Planning (GAO/AIMD-10.1.19, August 1998).

Internal Revenue Service: Impact of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act

on Year 2000 Efforts (GAO/GGD-98-158R, August 4, 1998).

Social Security Administration: Subcommittee Questions Concerning

Information Technology Challenges Facing the Commissioner

(GAO/AIMD-98-235R, July 10, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Needed on Electronic Data

Exchanges (GAO/AIMD-98-124, July 1, 1998).

Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Put Navy Operations

at Risk (GAO/AIMD-98-150, June 30, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: A Testing Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.21, Exposure

Draft, June 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Testing and Other Challenges Confronting

Federal Agencies (GAO/T-AIMD-98-218, June 22, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Telecommunications Readiness Critical, Yet

Overall Status Largely Unknown (GAO/T-AIMD-98-212, June 16, 1998).

GAO Views on Year 2000 Testing Metrics (GAO/AIMD-98-217R, June 16, 1998).

IRS’ Year 2000 Efforts: Business Continuity Planning Needed for Potential

Year 2000 System Failures (GAO/GGD-98-138, June 15, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Must Be Taken Now to Address Slow

Pace of Federal Progress (GAO/T-AIMD-98-205, June 10, 1998).

Defense Computers: Army Needs to Greatly Strengthen Its Year 2000

Program (GAO/AIMD-98-53, May 29, 1998).

Page 16 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
Attachment 

GAO Reports and Testimony Addressing the

Year 2000 Crisis

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: USDA Faces Tremendous Challenges in

Ensuring That Vital Public Services Are Not Disrupted (GAO/T-AIMD-98-167,

May 14, 1998).

Securities Pricing: Actions Needed for Conversion to Decimals

(GAO/T-GGD-98-121, May 8, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Continuing Risks of Disruption to Social

Security, Medicare, and Treasury Programs (GAO/T-AIMD-98-161, May 7, 1998).

IRS’ Year 2000 Efforts: Status and Risks (GAO/T-GGD-98-123, May 7, 1998).

Air Traffic Control: FAA Plans to Replace Its Host Computer System

Because Future Availability Cannot Be Assured (GAO/AIMD-98-138R, May 1,

1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Potential for Widespread Disruption Calls for

Strong Leadership and Partnerships (GAO/AIMD-98-85, April 30, 1998).

Defense Computers: Year 2000 Computer Problems Threaten DOD

Operations (GAO/AIMD-98-72, April 30, 1998).

Department of the Interior: Year 2000 Computing Crisis Presents Risk of

Disruption to Key Operations (GAO/T-AIMD-98-149, April 22, 1998).

Tax Administration: IRS’ Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request and Fiscal Year

1998 Filing Season (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-98-114, March 31, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership Needed to Avoid

Disruption of Essential Services (GAO/T-AIMD-98-117, March 24, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Regulatory Efforts to Ensure

Financial Institution Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-116,

March 24, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Office of Thrift Supervision’s Efforts to

Ensure Thrift Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-102,

March 18, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership and Effective

Public/Private Cooperation Needed to Avoid Major Disruptions

(GAO/T-AIMD-98-101, March 18, 1998).

Page 17 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
Attachment 

GAO Reports and Testimony Addressing the

Year 2000 Crisis

Post-Hearing Questions on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s

Year 2000 (Y2K) Preparedness (AIMD-98-108R, March 18, 1998).

SEC Year 2000 Report: Future Reports Could Provide More Detailed

Information (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-51, March 6, 1998).

Year 2000 Readiness: NRC’s Proposed Approach Regarding Nuclear

Powerplants (GAO/AIMD-98-90R, March 6, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s

Efforts to Ensure Bank Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant (GAO/T-AIMD-98-73,

February 10, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: FAA Must Act Quickly to Prevent Systems

Failures (GAO/T-AIMD-98-63, February 4, 1998).

FAA Computer Systems: Limited Progress on Year 2000 Issue Increases

Risk Dramatically (GAO/AIMD-98-45, January 30, 1998).

Defense Computers: Air Force Needs to Strengthen Year 2000 Oversight

(GAO/AIMD-98-35, January 16, 1998).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Needed to Address Credit Union

Systems’ Year 2000 Problem (GAO/AIMD-98-48, January 7, 1998).

Veterans Health Administration Facility Systems: Some Progress Made In

Ensuring Year 2000 Compliance, But Challenges Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-31R,

November 7, 1997).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: National Credit Union Administration’s

Efforts to Ensure Credit Union Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant

(GAO/T-AIMD-98-20, October 22, 1997).

Social Security Administration: Significant Progress Made in Year 2000

Effort, But Key Risks Remain (GAO/AIMD-98-6, October 22, 1997).

Defense Computers: Technical Support Is Key to Naval Supply Year 2000

Success (GAO/AIMD-98-7R, October 21, 1997).

Defense Computers: LSSC Needs to Confront Significant Year 2000 Issues

(GAO/AIMD-97-149, September 26, 1997).

Page 18 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
Attachment 

GAO Reports and Testimony Addressing the

Year 2000 Crisis

Veterans Affairs Computer Systems: Action Underway Yet Much Work

Remains To Resolve Year 2000 Crisis (GAO/T-AIMD-97-174, September 25,

1997).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Success Depends Upon Strong Management

and Structured Approach (GAO/T-AIMD-97-173, September 25, 1997).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14,

September 1997).

Defense Computers: SSG Needs to Sustain Year 2000 Progress

(GAO/AIMD-97-120R, August 19, 1997).

Defense Computers: Improvements to DOD Systems Inventory Needed for

Year 2000 Effort (GAO/AIMD-97-112, August 13, 1997).

Defense Computers: Issues Confronting DLA in Addressing Year 2000

Problems (GAO/AIMD-97-106, August 12, 1997).

Defense Computers: DFAS Faces Challenges in Solving the Year 2000

Problem (GAO/AIMD-97-117, August 11, 1997).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Time Is Running Out for Federal Agencies to

Prepare for the New Millennium (GAO/T-AIMD-97-129, July 10, 1997).

Veterans Benefits Computer Systems: Uninterrupted Delivery of Benefits

Depends on Timely Correction of Year-2000 Problems (GAO/T-AIMD-97-114,

June 26, 1997).

Veterans Benefits Computer Systems: Risks of VBA’s Year-2000 Efforts

(GAO/AIMD-97-79, May 30, 1997).

Medicare Transaction System: Success Depends Upon Correcting Critical

Managerial and Technical Weaknesses (GAO/AIMD-97-78, May 16, 1997).

Medicare Transaction System: Serious Managerial and Technical

Weaknesses Threaten Modernization (GAO/T-AIMD-97-91, May 16, 1997).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Risk of Serious Disruption to Essential

Government Functions Calls for Agency Action Now (GAO/T-AIMD-97-52,

February 27, 1997).

Page 19 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
Attachment 

GAO Reports and Testimony Addressing the

Year 2000 Crisis

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Strong Leadership Today Needed To Prevent

Future Disruption of Government Services (GAO/T-AIMD-97-51, February 24,

1997).

High-Risk Series: Information Management and Technology (GAO/HR-97-9,

February 1997).

(511262) Page 20 GAO/T-AIMD-98-310
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100