In our 2015 annual report, we identify 12 new areas in which we found evidence of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication, and we present 20 actions to executive branch agencies and Congress to address these issues. As described in table 1, these areas span a wide range of federal functions or missions. We consider programs or activities to be fragmented when more than one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of national need, which may result in inefficiencies in how the government delivers services. We identified fragmentation in multiple programs we reviewed. For example, in our 2015 annual report, we reported that oversight of consumer product safety involves at least 20 federal agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), resulting in fragmented oversight across agencies. Although agencies reported that the involvement of multiple agencies with various expertise can help ensure more comprehensive oversight by addressing a range of safety concerns, they also noted that fragmentation can result in unclear roles and potential regulatory gaps. Although a number of agencies have a role, no single entity has the expertise or authority to address the full scope of product safety activities. We suggested that Congress consider establishing a formal comprehensive oversight mechanism for consumer product safety agencies to address crosscutting issues as well as inefficiencies related to fragmentation and overlap, such as communication and coordination challenges and jurisdictional questions between agencies. Mechanisms could include, for example, formalizing relationships and agreements among consumer product safety agencies or establishing an interagency work group. CPSC, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology agreed with GAO’s matter for congressional consideration, while the remaining agencies neither agreed nor disagreed. Fragmentation can also be a harbinger for overlap or duplication. Overlap occurs when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. We found overlap among federal programs or initiatives in a variety of areas, including nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT). Forty-two programs across six different federal departments provide NEMT to individuals who cannot provide their own transportation due to age, disability, or income constraints. For example, NEMT programs at both Medicaid, within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have similar goals (to help their respective beneficiaries access medical services), serve potentially similar beneficiaries (those individuals who have disabilities, are low income, or are elderly), and engage in similar activities (providing NEMT transportation directly or indirectly). We found a number of challenges to coordination for these NEMT programs. For example, Medicaid and VA largely do not participate in NEMT coordination activities in the states we visited, in part because both programs are designed to serve their own populations of eligible beneficiaries and the agencies are concerned that without proper controls payments could be made for services to ineligible individuals. However, because Medicaid and VA are important to NEMT, as they provide services to potentially over 90 million individuals, greater interagency cooperation—with appropriate controls and safeguards to prevent improper payments—could enhance services to transportation- disadvantaged individuals and save money. An interagency coordinating council was developed to enhance federal, state, and local coordination activities, and it has taken some actions to address human service- transportation program coordination. However, the council has not convened since 2008 and has provided only limited leadership. For example, the council has not issued key guidance documents that could promote coordination, including an updated strategic plan. To improve efficiency, we recommended that the Department of Transportation (DOT), which chairs the interagency coordinating council, take steps to enhance coordination among the programs that provide NEMT. In response, DOT agreed that more work is needed to increase coordination activities with all HHS agencies, especially the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). DOT also said the Federal Transit Administration is asking its technical assistance centers to assist in developing responses to NEMT challenges. In other aspects of our work, we found evidence of duplication, which occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. An example of duplicative federal efforts is the US Family Health Plan (USFHP)—a statutorily required component of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Military Health System—and TRICARE Prime, which offers the same benefits to military beneficiaries. The USFHP was initially incorporated into the Military Health System in 1982 when Congress enacted legislation transferring ownership of certain U.S. Public Health Service hospitals to specific health care providers, referred to as designated providers under the program. During the implementation of the TRICARE program in the 1990s, Congress required the designated providers to offer the TRICARE Prime benefit to their enrollees in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. Today, the USFHP remains a health care option required by statute to be available to eligible beneficiaries in certain locations, despite TRICARE’s national presence through the managed care support contractors. However, the USFHP has largely remained unchanged, and its role has not since been reassessed within the Military Health System. DOD contracts with managed care support contractors to administer TRICARE Prime—TRICARE’s managed care option—in three regions in the United States (North, South, and West). Separately, TRICARE Prime is offered through the USFHP by designated providers in certain locations within the same three TRICARE regions that are served by a managed care support contractor. Thus, the USFHP offers military beneficiaries the same TRICARE Prime benefit that is offered by the managed care support contractors across much of the same geographic service areas and through many of the same providers. As a result, DOD has incurred added costs by paying the USFHP designated providers to simultaneously administer the same TRICARE Prime benefit to the same population of eligible beneficiaries in many of the same locations as the managed care support contractors. To eliminate this duplication within DOD’s health system and potentially save millions of dollars, we suggested that Congress terminate the statutorily required USFHP. In addition to areas of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, our 2015 report identified 46 actions that the executive branch and Congress can take to reduce the cost of government operations and enhance revenue collections for the U.S. Treasury in 12 areas. These opportunities for executive branch or congressional action exist in a wide range of federal government missions (see table 2). Examples of opportunities to reduce costs or enhance revenue collections from our 2015 annual report include updating the way Medicare pays certain cancer hospitals, rescinding unobligated funds, and re-examining the appropriate size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Updating the way Medicare pays certain cancer hospitals: To better control Medicare spending and generate cost savings of almost $500 million per year, Congress should consider changing Medicare’s cost- based payment methods for certain cancer hospitals. Medicare pays the majority of hospitals using an approach known as the inpatient and outpatient prospective payment systems (PPS). Under a PPS, hospitals are paid a predetermined amount based on the clinical classification of each service they provide to beneficiaries. Beginning in 1983, in response to concern that certain cancer hospitals would experience payment reductions under such a system, Congress required the establishment of criteria under which 11 cancer hospitals are exempted from the inpatient PPS and receive payment adjustments under the outpatient PPS. Since these cancer hospitals were first designated in the early 1980s, cancer care and Medicare’s payment system have changed significantly. Advances in techniques and drugs have increased treatment options and allowed for more localized delivery of care. Along with these developments, the primary setting for cancer care has shifted from the inpatient setting to the outpatient setting. In addition, Medicare’s current payment system better recognizes the resource intensity of hospital care than the system put in place in 1983. While most hospitals are paid a predetermined amount based on the clinical classification of each service they provide to beneficiaries, Medicare generally pays these 11 cancer hospitals based on their reported costs, providing little incentive for efficiency. We found that if beneficiaries who received care at the 11 cancer hospitals had received inpatient and outpatient services at nearby PPS teaching hospitals, Medicare might have realized substantial savings in 2012. Specifically, we estimated inpatient savings of about $166 million; we calculated outpatient savings of about $303 million if forgone payment adjustments were returned to the Medicare Trust Fund. Until Medicare pays these cancer hospitals in a way that encourages greater efficiency, Medicare remains at risk for overspending. Rescinding unobligated funds: Congress may wish to consider permanently rescinding the entire $1.6 billion balance of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) Fund, a revolving fund in the U.S. Treasury. As part of a 2001 GAO legal opinion, we determined that the USEC Fund was available for two purposes, both of which have been fulfilled: (1) environmental clean-up expenses associated with the disposition of depleted uranium at two specific facilities and (2) expenses of USEC privatization. Regarding the first authorized purpose, the construction of intended facilities associated with the disposition of depleted uranium has been completed. Regarding the second authorized purpose, USEC privatization was completed in 1998 when ownership of USEC was transferred to private investors. In an April 2014 report to Congress, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration stated that the USEC Fund was one of two sources of funding that it was exploring to finance research, development, and demonstration of national nuclear security-related enrichment technologies. However, this is not one of the authorized purposes of the USEC Fund. Transparency in budget materials is important for informing congressional decisions, and DOE’s efforts to utilize USEC Fund monies instead of general fund appropriations diminish that transparency. The House of Representatives included language to permanently rescind the USEC Fund in H.R.