Improper Payments: Remaining Challenges and Strategies for Governmentwide Reduction Efforts
Released: 2012-03-28T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Improper Payments Information Act of 2002

Fiscal year 2011 marked the eighth year of implementation of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA), as well as the first year of implementation for the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA). IPIA requires executive branch agencies to annually review all programs and activities to identify those that are susceptible to significant improper payments, estimate the annual amount of improper payments for such programs and activities, and report these estimates along with actions taken to reduce improper payments for programs with estimates that exceed $10 million. IPERA, enacted July 22, 2010, amended IPIA by expanding on the previous requirements for identifying, estimating, and reporting on programs and activities susceptible to significant improper payments and expanding requirements for recovering overpayments across a broad range of federal programs. IPERA included a new, broader requirement for agencies to conduct recovery audits, where cost effective, for each program and activity with at least $1 million in annual program outlays. This IPERA provision significantly lowers the threshold for required recovery audits from $500 millionall programs and activities. Another IPERA provision calls for federal agencies’ inspectors general to annually determine whether their respective agencies are in compliance with key IPERA requirements and to report on their determinations. Under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementing guidance, federal agencies are required to complete these reports within 120 days of the publication of their annual PARs or AFRs, with the fiscal year 2011 reports for most agencies due on March 15, 2012. to $1 million and expands the scope for recovery audits to OMB continues to play a key role in the oversight of the governmentwide improper payments issue. OMB has established guidance for federal agencies on reporting, reducing, and recovering improper paymentshas established various work groups responsible for developing recommendations aimed at improving federal financial management activities related to reducing improper payments.

HHS’s Foster Care Program

Each year, hundreds of thousands of our nation’s most vulnerable children are removed from their homes and placed in foster care, often because of abuse or neglect. While states are primarily responsible for providing safe and stable out-of-home care for these children until they are returned safely home, placed with adoptive families, or placed in other arrangements, Title IV-E of the Social Security Act provides states some ACF under HHS is responsible for federal financial support in this area.administering this program and overseeing Title IV-E funds. HHS’s reported fiscal year 2010 outlays to states for their Foster Care programs under Title IV-E totaled more than $4.5 billion, serving over 408,000 children, as of September 30, 2010, the most recent data available at the time of our study.

Past work by the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), GAO, and others have identified numerous deficiencies in state claims associated with the Title IV-E Foster Care program. In particular, the HHS OIG found hundreds of millions of dollars in unallowable claims associated with Title IV-E funding. A 2006 GAO report also found variations in costs states claimed under the Title IV-E program and recommended a number of actions HHS should take to better safeguard federal resources. In addition, annual state-level audits have identified weaknesses in states’ use of federal funds, such as spending on unallowed activities or costs and inadequate state monitoring of federal funding.

As required under IPIA, as amended, HHS has identified the Foster Care program as susceptible to significant improper payments, and has reported annually on estimated improper payment amounts for the program since 2005. For fiscal year 2010, HHS reported estimated improper payments for Foster Care of about $73 million. The reported estimate slightly decreased to about $72 million for fiscal year 2011.

OMB and Agencies Reported Progress in Estimating and Reducing Improper Payments

Federal agencies reported improper payment estimates totaling $115.3 billion in fiscal year 2011, a decrease of $5.3 billion from the revised prior year reported estimate of $120.6 billion. Based on the agencies’ estimates, OMB estimated that improper payments comprised about 4.7 percent of the $2.5 trillion in fiscal year 2011 total spending for the agencies’ related programs (i.e., a 4.7 percent error rate). The decrease in the fiscal year 2011 estimate—when compared to fiscal year 2010—is attributed primarily to decreases in program outlays for the Department of Labor’s (Labor) Unemployment Insurance program, and decreases in reported error rates for fiscal year 2011 for the Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) Earned Income Tax Credit program, and HHS’s Medicare Advantage program.

According to OMB, the $115.3 billion in estimated federal improper payments reported for fiscal year 2011 was attributable to 79 programs spread among 17 agencies. Ten of these 79 programs account for most of the $115.3 billion of reported improper payments. Specifically, these 10 programs accounted for about $107 billion or 93 percent of the total estimated improper payments agencies reported for fiscal year 2011. Table 1 shows the reported improper payment estimates and the reported primary cause(s) for the estimated improper payments for these 10 programs.

While the programs identified in the table above represented the largest dollar amounts of improper payments, 4 of these programs also had some of the highest program improper payment error rates.table 2, the 10 programs with the highest error rates accounted for $45 billion, or 39 percent of the total estimated improper payments, and had rates ranging from 11.0 percent to 28.4 percent for fiscal year 2011.

Governmentwide Challenges to Estimating and Evaluating Improper Payments

Despite reported progress in reducing estimated improper payment amounts and error rates for some programs and activities during fiscal year 2011, the federal government continues to face challenges in determining the full extent of improper payments. Specifically, some agencies have not yet reported estimates for all risk-susceptible programs, and some agencies’ estimating methodologies need to be refined. Until federal agencies are able to implement effective processes to completely and accurately identify the full extent of improper payments and implement appropriate corrective actions to effectively reduce improper payments, the federal government will not have reasonable assurance that the use of taxpayer funds is adequately safeguarded. In this regard, at the request of this Subcommittee, we recently completed our review of the improper payment estimation methodology used by HHS’s Foster Care program. As discussed in our report released today, we found that the Foster Care program’s improper payment estimation methodology was deficient in all three key areas—planning, selection, and evaluation—and consequently did not result in a reasonably accurate estimate of the extent of Foster Care improper payments. Further, the validity of the reporting of reduced Foster Care program error rates was questionable, and we found that several weaknesses impaired ACF’s ability to assess the effectiveness of corrective actions to reduce improper payments.

Challenges in Developing Improper Payment Estimates

We found that not all agencies have developed improper payment estimates for all of the programs and activities they identified as susceptible to significant improper payments. Specifically, three federal entities did not report fiscal year 2011 estimated improper payment amounts for four risk-susceptible programs. In one example, HHS’s fiscal year 2011 reporting cited statutory limitations for its state- administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, that prohibited it from requiring states to participate in developing an improper payment estimate for the TANF program. Despite these limitations, HHS officials stated that they will continue to work with states and explore options to allow for future estimates for the program. For fiscal year 2011, the TANF program reported outlays of about $17 billion. For another program, HHS cited the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 as prohibiting HHS from calculating or publishing any national or state-specific payment error rates for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) until 6 months after the new payment error rate measurement rule became effective on September 10, 2010. According to its fiscal year 2011 agency financial report, HHS plans to report estimated improper payment amounts for CHIP in fiscal year 2012. For fiscal year 2011, HHS reported federal outlays of about $9 billion for CHIP.

As previously mentioned, OMB excluded estimated improper payment amounts for two DOD programs from the governmentwide total because those programs were still developing their estimating methodologies— Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Commercial Pay, with fiscal year 2011 outlays of $368.5 billion, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Commercial Pay, with fiscal year 2011 outlays of $30.5 billion. In DOD’s fiscal year 2011 agency financial report, DOD reported that improper payment estimates for these programs were based on improper payments detected through various pre-payment and post-payment review processes rather than using methodologies similar to those used for DOD’s other programs, including statistically valid random sampling or reviewing 100 percent of payments.

GAO, DOD Financial Management: Weaknesses in Controls over the Use of Public Funds and Related Improper Payments, GAO-11-950T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2011), and Improper Payments: Significant Improvements Needed in DOD’s Efforts to Address Improper Payment and Recovery Auditing Requirements, GAO-09-442 (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2009). improper payments.statistically valid estimating process for its commercial payments and addresses the known control deficiencies in its commercial payment processes, the governmentwide improper payment estimates will continue to be incomplete. We are currently working on an engagement related to improper payment reporting at DOD.

Until DOD fully and effectively implements a For fiscal year 2011, two agency auditors reported on compliance issues with IPIA and IPERA as part of their 2011 financial statement audits. Specifically, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) auditors identified noncompliance with the requirements of IPERA regarding the design of program internal controls related to improper payments. In the other noncompliance issue, while for fiscal year 2011 HHS estimated an annual amount of improper payments for some of its risk-susceptible programs, a key requirement of IPIA, it did not report an improper payment estimate for its TANF program and CHIP. Fiscal year 2011 marked the eighth consecutive year that auditors for HHS reported noncompliance issues with IPIA.

We recognize that measuring improper payments for federal programs and designing and implementing actions to reduce or eliminate them are not simple tasks, particularly for grant programs that rely on administration efforts at the state level. The estimation methodologies for these types of programs may vary considerably because of differences in program designs across the states. For example, as I will discuss in more detail later in this statement, the Foster Care program leveraged an existing process to estimate improper payments that included a review of a child’s eligibility for Title IV-E federal funding as claimed by the states administering the program. In another example, the improper payment estimate for HHS’s Medicaid program is based on the results of three different reviews—eligibility, fee-for-service, and managed care—of claims payments made by states to health care providers. The fee-for- service and managed care reviews both include a data processing review to validate that claims were processed correctly. The fee-for-service review also includes a medical necessity determination. The eligibility review identifies payments made for services to beneficiaries that were improperly paid because of erroneous eligibility decisions. We are currently working on an engagement related to improper payment reporting for the Medicaid program. Because of these state differences and complexities within programs, as we previously reported, communication, coordination, and cooperation among federal agencies and the states will be critical to effectively estimate national improper payment rates and meet IPIA reporting requirements for state- administered programs.

Case Study: Foster Care Program Faces Challenges in Estimating Improper Payments and Evaluating Corrective Actions

The results of our recently completed study of the improper payment estimation methodology used by HHS’s Foster Care program serve to provide a more detailed perspective on the challenges one federal agency faced in attempting to develop a complete and accurate nationwide estimate for a program largely administered at the state level. Further, this case study provides an example of the types of problems that may exist but go undetected because of the lack of independent assessments of the reported information. As we previously testified before this Subcommittee,auditors provide a valuable independent validation of agencies’ efforts to report reliable information under IPIA. Independent assessments can also enhance an agency’s ability to identify sound performance measures, monitor progress against those measures, and help establish performance and results expectations. Without this type of validation or other types of reviews performed by GAO or agency OIGs, it is difficult to reliably determine the full magnitude of deficiencies that may exist governmentwide in agencies’ IPIA implementation efforts. For example, our case study of the Foster Care program found that although ACF had established a process to calculate a national improper payment estimate, the estimate was not based on a statistically valid methodology and consequently did not reflect a reasonably accurate estimate of the extent of Foster Care improper payments. Further, without accurate data, the separate assessments conducted by agency validity of the Foster Care program’s reported reductions in improper payments was questionable, and ACF’s ability to reliably assess the effectiveness of its corrective actions was impaired.

For programs administered at the state level such as Foster Care, OMB guidance provides that statistically valid annual estimates of improper payments may be based on either data for all states or on statistical data from a sample to generate a national dollar estimate and improper payment rate. In this case, ACF took its existing Title IV-E Foster Care program eligibility review process, already in place under the Social Security Act, and also used it for IPIA estimation. ACF provides a national estimated error rate based on a rolling average of error rates identified in states examined on a 3-year cycle. As a result, ACF’s IPIA reporting for each year is based on new data for about one-third of the states and previous years’ data for the remaining two-thirds of the states. To calculate a national estimate of improper payments, ACF uses error rates that span a 3-year period of Title IV-E eligibility reviews in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. ACF applies the percentage dollar error rate from the sample to the total payments for the period under review for each state.

ACF’s methodology for estimating Foster Care improper payments was approved by OMB in 2004 with the understanding that continuing efforts would be taken to improve the accuracy of ACF’s estimates of improper payments in the ensuing years. ACF, however, has since continued to generally follow its initial 2004 methodology. When compared to federal statistical guidance and internal control standards, we found it to be deficient in all three phases of its fiscal year 2010 estimation methodology—planning, selection, and evaluation—as summarized in table 3. These deficiencies impaired the accuracy and completeness of the Foster Care program improper payment estimate of $73 million reported for fiscal year 2010.

Planning. ACF’s annual IPIA reporting for the Foster Care program did not include about two-thirds of program expenditures, as shown in figure 1. Specifically, the estimate included improper payments for only one type of program payment activity—maintenance payments—which, for fiscal year 2010, represented 34 percent of the total federal share of expenditures for the Foster Care program. Administrative and other payments, such as those related to the operation and development of the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS), were not considered in ACF’s IPIA estimation process and thus were not included in the Foster Care program improper payment estimate. OMB’s December 2004 approval of ACF’s proposed methodology included an expectation that ACF would develop a plan and timetable to test administrative expenses by April 2005. ACF has conducted various pilots in this area since 2007 with the goal of ensuring that improper payment data for administrative costs are sufficiently reliable and valid without imposing undue burden on states. Although ACF expects to estimate for administrative improper payments and recognizes the importance of doing so, it has not yet taken action to augment its existing methodology.

Selection. The population of data from which ACF selected its sample— the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)—were not reliable because ACF’s sampling methodology did not provide for up-front data quality control procedures to (1) ensure that the population of cases was complete prior to its sample selection and (2) identify inaccuracies in the data field used for sample selection. Specifically, ACF had to replace a high percentage of cases sampled from the database of Foster Care cases for the fiscal year 2010 reporting period because of inaccurate information in AFCARS.

Of the original 4,570 sample cases ACF selected for testing in its primary and secondary reviews for fiscal year 2010, 298 cases (almost 7 percent) had to be replaced with substitutes because the selected cases had not received Title IV-E Foster Care maintenance payments during the period under review.

Of the 298 over-sampled cases used to replace the cases initially selected, 63 cases (more than 21 percent) then had to be replaced again because those cases had also not received Title IV-E Foster Care maintenance payments during the period under review.

Further, although we were able to determine how many sampled (or over-sampled) cases had to be replaced because available records showed no Title IV-E payment was received during the reporting period, neither GAO nor ACF were able to determine the extent to which the opposite occurred—cases that had received a payment (and therefore should have been included in the sample population) had not been coded as receiving Title IV-E payments.

Without developing a statistically valid sampling methodology that incorporates up-front data quality controls to ensure complete and accurate information on the population, including payment data, ACF cannot provide assurance that its reported improper payment estimate accurately and completely represents the extent of improper maintenance payments in the Foster Care program.

Evaluation. Although ACF’s methodology identified some errors related to underpayments and duplicate or excessive payments, it did not include procedures to reliably determine the full extent of such errors. In its fiscal year 2010 agency financial report, ACF reported that underpayments and duplicate or excessive payments represented 19 percent and 6 percent, respectively, or 25 percent of the errors that caused improper payments. However, the extent of underpayments and duplicate or excessive payment errors identified varied widely by state, and in some instances were not identified at all. For example, ACF did not identify underpayments in 31 of 51 state eligibility reviews and did not identify duplicate or excessive payments in 36 of 51 state eligibility reviews.did not assess the validity of the reported data. However, the absence of such errors for some states seems inconsistent with the general distribution of errors reported elsewhere. Further, the lack of detailed We procedures for identifying any such payment errors may have contributed to the variation or to whether the teams found any errors. The purpose of the eligibility reviews is to validate the accuracy of a state’s claim for reimbursement of payments made on behalf of eligible children or the accuracy of federal financial assistance provided to states. Without detailed procedures to guide review teams in the identification of underpayments and duplicate or excessive payments, ACF cannot provide assurance that it has identified the full extent of any such errors in its Foster Care program.

The weaknesses we identified in ACF’s methodology to estimate improper payments in the Foster Care program also impaired its ability to reliably assess the extent to which its corrective actions reduced Foster Care program improper payments. For example, although ACF has reported significantly reduced estimated improper maintenance payments, from a baseline error rate of 10.33 percent for 2004 to a 4.9 percent error rate for 2010, the validity of ACF’s reporting of reduced improper payment error rates is questionable because the previously discussed weaknesses in its estimation methodology impaired the accuracy and completeness of the reported estimate and error rate. In addition, we found that ACF’s ability to reliably assess the extent to which its corrective actions reduced improper payments was impaired by weaknesses in its requirements for state-level corrective actions. For example, ACF used the number of cases found in error rather than the dollar amount of improper payments identified to determine whether a state was required to implement corrective actions. ACF required states to implement corrective actions through a program improvement plan, if during the Title IV-E primary eligibility review, a state was found to have an error rate exceeding 5 percent of the number of cases reviewed. We identified six states that were found substantially compliant in their primary eligibility reviews as their case error rates were below the established 5 percent threshold. However, the dollar-based improper payment rates for those six states ranged from 5.1 percent to 19.8 percent—based on the percentage of improper payment dollars found in the sample. Because dollar-based improper payment rates are not used in applying the corrective action strategy, ACF’s method cannot effectively measure states’ progress over time in reducing improper payments. It also cannot effectively help determine whether further action is needed to minimize future improper payments. This limits the extent to which states are held accountable for the reduction of improper payments in the Foster Care program.

Our report released today includes seven recommendations to help improve ACF’s methodology for estimating improper payments for the Foster Care program and its corrective action process. In commenting on our draft report, HHS agreed that its improper payment estimation efforts can and should be improved, generally concurred with four of our recommendations, and agreed to continue to study the remaining three recommendations. We reaffirm the need for all seven recommendations.

Current and Possible Strategies to Move Forward in Reducing Improper Payments

A number of actions are under way across the federal government to help advance improper payment reduction goals. Completing these initiatives, as well as designing and implementing enhanced strategies in the future, will be needed to effectively reduce the federal government’s improper payments. Identifying and analyzing the root causes of improper payments is key to developing effective corrective actions and implementing the controls needed to reduce and prevent improper payments. In this regard, implementing strong preventive controls are particularly important as these controls can serve as the front-line defense against improper payments. Proactively preventing improper payments increases public confidence in the administration of benefit programs and avoids the difficulties associated with the “pay and chase”aspects of recovering improper payments. For example, addressing program design issues that are a factor in causing improper payments may be an effective preventive strategy. Effective monitoring and reporting will also be important to help detect any emerging improper payment issues. In addition, agencies’ actions to enhance detective controls to identify and recover overpayments could help increase the attention to preventing, identifying, and recovering improper payments. For instance, agency strategies to enhance incentives for grantees, such as state and local governments, will be important.

Identifying and Analyzing Root Causes of Improper Payments

Agencies cited a number of causes for the estimated $115.3 billion in reported improper payments, including insufficient documentation; incorrect computations; changes in program requirements; and, in some cases, fraud. Beginning in fiscal year 2011, according to OMB’s guidance, agencies were required to classify the root causes of estimated improper payments into three general categories for reporting purposes: (1) documentation and administrative errors, (2) authentication and medical necessity errors, and (3) verification errors.information on the root causes of the current improper payment estimates is necessary for agencies to target effective corrective actions and implement preventive measures.

While agencies generally reported some description of the causes of improper payments for their respective programs in their fiscal year 2011 reports, many agencies did not use the three categories prescribed by OMB to classify the types of errors and quantify how many errors can be attributed to that category. Of the 79 programs with improper payment estimates in fiscal year 2011, we found that agencies reported the root cause information using the required categories for 42 programs in their fiscal year 2011 PARs and AFRs. Together, these programs represented about $46 billion, or 40 percent of the total reported $115.3 billion in improper payment estimates for fiscal year 2011. Of the $46 billion, the estimated improper payments amounts were spread across the three categories, with documentation and administrative errors being cited most often. We could not calculate the dollar amounts associated with each category because the narratives included in some of the agencies’ reporting of identified causes were not sufficiently detailed or documented. Thorough and properly documented analysis regarding the root causes is critical if federal agencies are to effectively identify and implement corrective and preventive actions across their various programs.

Implementing Effective Preventive Controls to Avoid Improper Payments

Many agencies and programs are in the process of implementing preventive controls to avoid improper payments, including overpayments and underpayments. Preventive controls may involve a variety of activities, such as up-front validation of eligibility, predictive analytic tests, training programs, and timely resolution of audit findings, as described below. Further, addressing program design deficiencies that have caused improper payments may be considered as part of an effective preventive strategy.

Up-front eligibility validation through data sharing. Data sharing allows entities that make payments—to contractors, vendors, participants in benefit programs, and others—to compare information from different sources to help ensure that payments are appropriate. When effectively implemented, data sharing can be particularly useful in confirming initial or continuing eligibility of participants in benefit programs and in identifying any improper payments that have already been made. Also, in June 2010, the President issued a presidential memorandum, titled Enhancing Payment Accuracy Through a “Do Not Pay List”, to help prevent improper payments to ineligible recipients.

This memorandum also directs agencies to review prepayment and reward procedures and ensure that a thorough review of available databases with relevant information on eligibility occurs before the release of any federal funds. Analyses and reporting on the extent to which agencies are participating in data sharing activities, and additional data sharing efforts that agencies are currently pursuing or would like to pursue, are other important elements that merit consideration as part of future strategies to advance the federal government’s efforts to reduce improper payments.

For example, Labor reported that its Unemployment Insurance program utilizes HHS’s National Directory of New Hires database to improve the ability to detect overpayments caused by individuals who claim benefits after returning to work—the largest single cause of overpayments reported in the program. In June 2011, Labor established the mandatory use of the database for state benefit payment control no later than December 2011. Labor also recommended operating procedures for cross-matching activity for national and state directories of new hires.

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C: November 1999). identifying opportunities for streamlining or changing the eligibility or other program control requirements.

Implementing Effective Detective Controls to Identify and Recover Overpayments

Although strong preventive controls remain the frontline defense against improper payments, agencies’ improper payment reduction strategies could also consider actions to establish additional effective detection techniques to quickly identify and recover those improper payments that do occur. Detection activities play a significant role not only in identifying improper payments, but also in providing data on why these payments were made and, in turn, highlighting areas that could benefit from strengthened prevention controls. The following are examples of key detection activities to be considered.

Data mining. Data mining is a computer-based control activity that analyzes diverse data for relationships that have not previously been discovered. The central repository of data commonly used to perform data mining is called a data warehouse. Data warehouses store tables of historical and current information that are logically grouped. As a tool in detecting improper payments, data mining of a data warehouse can enable an organization to efficiently identify potential improper payments, such as multiple payments for an individual invoice to an individual recipient on the same date, or to the same address. For example, in the Medicare and Medicaid program, data on claims are stored in geographically disbursed systems and databases that are not readily available to CMS’s program integrity analysts. Over the past decade, CMS has been working to consolidate program integrity data and analytical tools for detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. The agency’s efforts led to the initiation of the Integrated Data Repository (IDR) program, which is intended to provide CMS and its program integrity contractors with a centralized source that contains Medicaid and Medicare data from the many disparate and dispersed legacy systems and databases. CMS subsequently developed the One Program Integrity (One PI) program,analytical tools by which these data can be accessed and analyzed to a web-based portal and set of help identify any cases of fraudulent, wasteful, and abusive payments based on patterns of paid claims.

Recovery auditing. While internal control should be maintained to help prevent improper payments, recovery auditing could be included as a part of agencies’ strategy for identifying and recovering contractor overpayments. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 required CMS to implement a national Medicare recovery audit contractor (RAC) program by January 1, 2010. HHS reported that the Medicare Fee-for-Service recovery audit program identified $961 million in overpayments and recovered $797 million nationwide. Further, the Medicaid RAC program was established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under this program, each state is to contract with a RAC to identify and recover Medicaid overpayments and identify any underpayments. The final regulations provided that state Medicaid RACs were to be implemented by January 1, 2012. Similar to the Medicare RACs, Medicaid RACs will be paid on a contingency fee basis—a percentage of any recovered overpayments plus incentive payments for the detection of underpayments.

Pub. L. No. 109-432, div. B., title III, § 302, 120 Stat. 2922, 2991-92 (Dec. 20, 2006), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1395ddd(h). drafted language to address the issue and is working to publish a notice of proposed rule making to amend its regulation.

In another instance, USDA reported that Section 281 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 precluded the use of recovery auditing techniques because Section 281 provides that 90 days after the decision of a state, county, or an area committee is final, no action may be taken to recover the amounts found to have been erroneously disbursed as a result of the decision unless the participant had reason to believe that the decision was erroneous. This statute is commonly referred to as the Finality Rule. As part of its annual improper payments reporting, USDA did not cite an alternative approach for implementing a recovery auditing strategy.

Federal-state incentives. Another area for further exploration for agencies’ improper payment reduction strategies is the broader use of incentives for states to implement effective detective controls. Agencies have applied limited incentives and penalties for encouraging improved state administration to reduce improper payments. Incentives and penalties can be helpful to create management reform and to ensure adherence to performance standards.

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-2623 or DavisBH@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Carla Lewis, Assistant Director; Sophie Brown; Francine DelVecchio; Gabrielle Fagan; and Kerry Porter.

Related GAO Products

Foster Care Program: Improved Processes Needed to Estimate Improper Payments and Evaluate Related Corrective Actions. GAO-12-312. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2012.

Improper Payments: Moving Forward with Governmentwide Reduction Strategies. GAO-12-405T. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2012.

For our report on the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2011, see Department of the Treasury. 2011 Financial Report of the United States Government. Washington, D.C.: December 23, 2011, pp. 211-231.

Medicaid Program Integrity: Expanded Federal Role Presents Challenges to and Opportunities for Assisting States. GAO-12-288T. Washington, D.C.: December 7, 2011.

DOD Financial Management: Weaknesses in Controls over the Use of Public Funds and Related Improper Payments. GAO-11-950T. Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2011.

Improper Payments: Reported Medicare Estimates and Key Remediation Strategies. GAO-11-842T. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2011.

Fraud Detection Systems: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Needs to Ensure More Widespread Use. GAO-11-475. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2011.

Improper Payments: Recent Efforts to Address Improper Payments and Remaining Challenges. GAO-11-575T. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2011.

Status of Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Improper Payments Reporting. GAO-11-443R. Washington, D.C.: March 25, 2011.

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011.

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-11-278. Washington, D.C.: February 2011.

Improper Payments: Significant Improvements Needed in DOD’s Efforts to Address Improper Payment and Recovery Auditing Requirements. GAO-09-442. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2009.

Improper Payments: Progress Made but Challenges Remain in Estimating and Reducing Improper Payments. GAO-09-628T. Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2009.

Improper Payments: Status of Agencies’ Efforts to Address Improper Payment and Recovery Auditing Requirements. GAO-08-438T. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2008.

Improper Payments: Federal Executive Branch Agencies’ Fiscal Year 2007 Improper Payment Estimate Reporting. GAO-08-377R. Washington, D.C.: January 23, 2008.

Improper Payments: Weaknesses in USAID’s and NASA’s Implementation of the Improper Payments Information Act and Recovery Auditing. GAO-08-77. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2007.

Improper Payments: Agencies’ Efforts to Address Improper Payment and Recovery Auditing Requirements Continue. GAO-07-635T. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2007.

Improper Payments: Incomplete Reporting under the Improper Payments Information Act Masks the Extent of the Problem. GAO-07-254T. Washington, D.C.: December 5, 2006.

Improper Payments: Agencies’ Fiscal Year 2005 Reporting under the Improper Payments Information Act Remains Incomplete. GAO-07-92. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2006.

Improper Payments: Federal and State Coordination Needed to Report National Improper Payment Estimates on Federal Programs. GAO-06-347. Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2006.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.