Improper Payments: Responses to Posthearing Questions Related to 
Agencies' Progress in Addressing Improper Payment and Recovery	 
Auditing Requirements (30-MAY-07, GAO-07-834R). 		 
                                                                 
On March 29, 2007, we testified before the Senate Committee on	 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Federal Financial	 
Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and	 
International Security Subcommittee at a hearing entitled,	 
"Eliminating and Recovering Improper Payments." At the hearing,  
we discussed federal agencies' progress in addressing key	 
requirements of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002	 
(IPIA) and Section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2002, commonly known as the Recovery Auditing	 
Act. Our review and testimony focused on (1) trends in agencies' 
reporting under IPIA from fiscal years 2004 through 2006, (2)	 
challenges in reporting improper payment information and	 
improving internal control, and (3) agencies' reporting of	 
recovery auditing efforts. This letter responds to Congress's	 
April 18, 2007, request to provide answers to follow-up questions
relating to our March 29, 2007, testimony. The responses are	 
based on work associated with previously issued GAO products and 
data reported in agencies' performance and accountability reports
(PAR).								 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-834R					        
    ACCNO:   A70033						        
  TITLE:     Improper Payments: Responses to Posthearing Questions    
Related to Agencies' Progress in Addressing Improper Payment and 
Recovery Auditing Requirements					 
     DATE:   05/30/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Accounting procedures				 
	     Allocation (Government accounting) 		 
	     Audit reports					 
	     Erroneous payments 				 
	     Financial management				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Overpayments					 
	     Questionable payments				 
	     Reporting requirements				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-834R

   

     * [1]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf

          * [2]Order by Mail or Phone

May 30, 2007
The Honorable Thomas R. Carper
Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government
Information, Federal Services, and International Security
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

Subject: Improper Payments: Responses to Posthearing Questions Related to
Agencies' Progress in Addressing Improper Payment and Recovery Auditing
Requirements

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On March 29, 2007, we testified^1 before your subcommittee at a hearing
entitled, "Eliminating and Recovering Improper Payments." At the hearing,
we discussed federal agencies' progress in addressing key requirements of
the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA)^2 and Section 831 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, commonly
known as the Recovery Auditing Act.^3 Our review and testimony focused on
(1) trends in agencies' reporting under IPIA from fiscal years 2004
through 2006, (2) challenges in reporting improper payment information and
improving internal control, and (3) agencies' reporting of recovery
auditing efforts.

This letter responds to your April 18, 2007, request to provide answers to
follow-up questions relating to our March 29, 2007, testimony. The
responses are based on work associated with previously issued GAO products
(see Related GAO Products at the end of this report) and data reported in
agencies' performance and accountability reports (PAR). Your questions,
along with our responses, follow.

           1.  In your written testimony, you state that over half of the
           programs reporting improper payment estimates also had reported
           management challenges, including internal control issues that may
           have a direct impact on improper payment issues. Could you provide
           us with an example of how internal control issues increase the
           risk that agencies will make improper payments? What guidelines
           are available or where can agencies go to learn how to manage
           improper payments and implement strong internal controls?

^1GAO, Improper Payments: Agencies' Efforts to Address Improper Payment
and Recovery Auditing Requirements Continue, GAO-07-635T (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 29, 2007).

^2Pub. L. No. 107-300, 116 Stat. 2350 (Nov. 26, 2002).

^3National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-107, div. A, title VIII, S 831, 115 Stat. 1012, 1186 (Dec. 28, 2001)
(codified at 31 U.S.C. SS 3561-3567).

Internal control is a major part of managing an organization. It comprises
the plans, methods, and procedures used to meet missions, goals, and
objectives that support performance-based management. Internal control
serves as the first line of defense in safeguarding assets and preventing
and detecting errors and fraud. Strong systems of internal control provide
reasonable assurance that programs are operating as intended and are
achieving expected outcomes. Generally, improper payments result from a
lack of or an inadequate system of internal controls, but some result from
program design issues.

For fiscal year 2006, agency auditors reported numerous internal control
weaknesses that could increase the risk of improper payments. For example,
at the National Science Foundation (NSF), agency auditors identified two
reportable conditions during their examination of the effectiveness of
NSF's internal control over financial reporting. These reportable
conditions related to oversight of grants and cooperative agreements and
monitoring of contracts. For the first reportable condition, auditors
found that NSF's monitoring process to ensure that expenditures were
allowable, allocable, and reasonable under the terms of the grant award or
agreement lacked oversight reviews for 286, or about 84 percent, of
high-risk awards,^4 totaling approximately $2.7 billion for fiscal year
2006. As such, NSF could not ensure that federal funds were properly spent
on allowable costs benefiting NSF's research activities. The auditors
recommended, among other things, that NSF management expand the coverage
of review for its high-risk awards.

Regarding the second reportable condition, the auditors reported that NSF
did not have a comprehensive, risk-based system, including detailed
policies and procedures, in place to oversee and monitor its contract
awards totaling about $550 million for fiscal year 2006. This lack of
appropriate contract oversight was evident during the auditor's review of
NSF's largest contractor responsible for acquiring, maintaining, and
performing a physical inventory of NSF's property, plant, and equipment
(PP&E). The auditors reported that NSF did not perform any independent
verification of the PP&E amounts reported by the contractor, and did not
maintain copies of source documentation supporting the amounts included in
the financial statements. The auditors recommended that NSF develop a more
comprehensive, risk-based, internal management monitoring program to
ensure that contractors use NSF funds consistent with the objectives of
the contract, and that funds are protected from waste, fraud, or
mismanagement.

^4NSF procedures require that awards are assessed as high, medium, or low
risk based on objective factors. The procedures also require that
institutions with high-risk awards receive a more detailed level of review
such as site visits on a cyclical basis every 4 or 5 years.

There are two key resources available to agencies for implementing strong
internal control and managing improper payments. First, our Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government^5 provides an overall framework
for entities to establish control for all aspects of their operations and
a basis against which entities' control structures can be evaluated.
Specifically, internal control provides reasonable assurance that an
organization's objectives are achieved through (1) effective and efficient
operations, (2) reliable financial reporting, and (3) compliance with laws
and regulations.

Second, our executive guide^6 on strategies to manage improper payments
focuses on internal control standards as they relate to reducing improper
payments. The five components of internal control--control environment,
risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and
monitoring--are defined in the executive guide in relation to improper
payments as follows:

           o Control environment--creating a culture of accountability by
           establishing a positive and supportive attitude toward improvement
           and the achievement of established program outcomes. 
           o Risk assessment--analyzing program operations to determine if
           risks exist and the nature and extent of the risks identified. 
           o Control activities--taking actions to address identified risk
           areas and help ensure that management's decisions and plans are
           carried out and program objectives are met. 
           o Information and communication--using and sharing relevant,
           reliable, and timely financial and nonfinancial information in
           managing activities related to improper payments. 
           o Monitoring--tracking improvement initiatives over time, and
           identifying additional actions needed to further improve program
           efficiency and effectiveness.

           2.  In your written testimony, you note that the Improper Payments
           Information Act does not include a requirement for auditors to
           assess agencies' compliance with the Act. Would there be any value
           in making this a requirement of agency auditors?

As we stated in our testimony, IPIA does not include a separate reporting
requirement for auditors to assess agencies' compliance with the act.
However, where agencies' auditors have elected to test specific compliance
with IPIA, their assessments have provided a valuable independent
validation of agencies' efforts to implement the act. For example, we
found that for the selected agencies we reviewed, some agencies' auditors
reported problems relating to agencies' risk assessments, the definition
of programs for IPIA purposes, sampling methodologies, lack of reporting
for all risk-susceptible programs, and supporting documentation.

^5GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

^6GAO, Strategies to Manage Improper Payments: Learning From Public and
Private Sector Organizations, GAO-02-69G (Washington, D.C.: October 2001).

Identification of any deficiencies in implementing IPIA helps agencies
determine if risks exist, what those risks are, and the potential or
actual effect of those risks on program operations. Independent
assessments of these estimates would also enhance an agency's ability to
identify sound performance measures, monitor progress against those
measures, and help establish performance and results expectations.
Finally, independent assessments of agencies' improper payments estimates
would enable agencies and others with oversight and monitoring
responsibilities to measure progress over time and determine whether
further action is needed to minimize future improper payments.

           3.  You have stated that certain methodologies used to estimate
           improper payments did not result in accurate estimates. Could you
           please explain what this means? What needs to be done to help
           ensure that amounts reported by agencies are accurate?

As we reported in our testimony, the $42 billion total improper payment
estimate reported by agencies for fiscal year 2006 may not reflect the
full magnitude of total improper payments. We noted that agencies employed
different sampling methodologies to estimate improper payments, including
statistical sampling, nonstatistical sampling, or a combination of the
two.^7 The advantage of using statistical sampling is that sample results
can be generalized to the entire population from which the sample was
taken. Thus, a properly designed statistical sampling methodology provides
a more accurate representation of the extent to which improper payments
exist within a given program or activity. On the other hand, results of a
nongeneralizable, or judgmental, sample may not be extrapolated beyond the
sample transactions tested. For fiscal year 2006, we found that seven
agencies did not use statistical sampling to estimate improper payments
for nine programs totaling about $202 million, with program outlays
exceeding $88 billion. Because the results of nongeneralizable sample
selections cannot be extrapolated beyond the sampled items, the improper
payment estimate for these programs would likely have been much greater
had statistically valid methods been used.

Agency statisticians should be engaged throughout the sampling process,
from design of the sampling methodology to evaluation of the results. This
is consistent with OMB's revised IPIA implementation guidance,^8 which
provides general steps that agencies should follow to obtain a
statistically valid improper payment estimate. Specifically, OMB guidance
emphasizes that most agencies will need to consult with a statistician to
design an appropriate sample that considers payment universes with
divergent dollar amounts, types of payments, or both, and samples that
involve multiple stages of selection or stratification. Further,
additional oversight of agencies' sampling methodologies could help ensure
that amounts reported by agencies are accurate and, in turn, enable
agencies to measure progress over time and determine whether further
action is needed to minimize future improper payments.

^7The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) implementing guidance
requires that agencies generally use a statistical sample to estimate
improper payments. Agencies may also use an alternative sampling approach
provided they obtain OMB approval prior to implementation.

^8OMB Memorandum M-06-23, "Issuance of Appendix C to OMB Circular No.
A-123" (Aug. 10, 2006).

           4.  As you know, the Improper Payments Information Act requires
           agencies, with respect to any program or activity with estimated
           improper payments of more than $10 million, file a report along
           with their improper payments estimates that includes at least four
           things:

                        a.  a discussion of the causes of improper payments
                        identified, actions taken to correct those causes,
                        and results of the actions taken to address those
                        causes;
                        b.  a statement of whether the agency has the
                        information systems and other infrastructure it needs
                        in order to reduce improper payments to minimal
                        cost-effective levels;
                        c.  If the agency does not have such systems and
                        infrastructure, a description of the resources the
                        agency has requested in its budget submission to
                        obtain the necessary information systems and
                        infrastructure; and
                        d.  a description of the steps the agency has taken
                        to ensure that agency managers (including the agency
                        head) are held accountable for reducing improper
                        payments.

           Do you think these are the right things we should be asking
           agencies to report on? What, if anything, would you add or take
           away from the reporting requirements under the Act?

The current IPIA reporting requirements increase the visibility over the
governmentwide improper payments problem and transparency of agencies'
efforts to address improper payments in their programs. Improper payments
are a significant problem in the federal government and information on
actions taken, and the results of those actions, is a critical element in
the overall process of reducing improper payments. Prior to implementation
of IPIA, we issued several reports^9 on governmentwide improper payments.
Our reviews showed that the type and amount of improper payment
information reported were inconsistent across federal agencies, with few
agencies publicly reporting the amounts of their improper payments or
other information such as:

           o barriers to identifying or reducing improper payments,
           o targets and goals set for improvement, and
           o progress in identifying, minimizing, and recovering improper
           payments.

The act's reporting requirements coincide with our recommendations made
prior to IPIA implementation that agencies take actions to estimate,
reduce, and publicly report improper payments. Our prior recommendations
and OMB's IPIA implementing guidance also provided that agencies (1)
assign responsibility to a senior official for establishing policies and
procedures for assessing agency and program risks of improper payments,
and (2) establish improper payment goals or targets and measure
performance against those goals to determine progress made and areas
needing additional improvements.

^9See the Related GAO Products list at the end of this report.

However, two additional areas that could provide enhanced transparency in
agencies' improper payment reporting include (1) a reporting requirement
concerning improper payment estimates by type of error and (2) information
on agencies' efforts to recover improper payments in their
risk-susceptible programs and activities. Currently, we found that only a
few agencies report improper payment estimates by type of error or provide
information on the recovery of improper payments made to program
beneficiaries or grantees. Existing guidance to report recovery auditing
information solely focuses on contract overpayments made to vendors in
accordance with the Recovery Auditing Act. Agencies should consider
performing cost-benefit analyses of a recovery auditing program before
implementation to provide a baseline to help ensure that the cost of those
activities to the organization is not greater than the potential benefit
and then measure results periodically.

Requiring the reporting of improper payment estimates by type of error
would assist in the identification of the source and progress made to
reduce those errors. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) reports three types of error rates for its public
housing/rental assistance programs--errors due to administrator subsidy
determinations, tenant underreporting of income, and gross billing errors.
With this level of detail, HUD has the information available to readily
measure its progress in reducing improper payments related to these types
of errors, and thus is in a better position to target corrective actions.
Other agencies categorized errors as to cause, but did not report an
estimate for each category. For example, the Department of Transportation
categorized its errors into various types---such as data entry errors,
unallowable charges, and materials received not in accordance with
contract terms--but did not report an estimate for each category. We also
realize that agencies may use other reporting methods to provide a
detailed breakout of their improper payment estimates. Although not
included as part of its PAR reporting, the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) reports improper payment estimates for its Medicare
Fee-for-Service program by type of error, individual contractor, and
geographical region and makes this information publicly available on its
Web site.^10

Another area that agencies could be required to report on as part of their
IPIA reporting includes the results of their efforts to recover improper
payments in their risk-susceptible programs and activities. Generally,
agencies' recovery auditing efforts target contract overpayments as
required by the Recovery Auditing Act. These requirements are only
applicable for agencies that enter into contracts with a total value in
excess of $500 million in a given fiscal year. Agencies currently have no
requirement under IPIA to report on any recovery efforts for improper
payments made to program beneficiaries or grantees. Reporting this type of
information would provide additional accountability mechanisms for
agencies to recover taxpayer funds and provide Congress additional insight
on challenges agencies face in recovering improperly paid funds.

^10See the Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) reports at
[3]www.cms.hhs.gov/CERT/ .

           5.  As you know, there has been significant debate over OMB's
           definition of the phrase "significant improper payments." How this
           phrase is defined is important because it determines which
           programs and activities - all of which likely have some level of
           improper payment - actually report the payment errors they make.
           Do you think there is some way to define "significant improper
           payments" that gives us more transparency without imposing an
           unacceptable administrative burden on OMB and the agencies?

We reported^11 in November 2006 that OMB's implementation of IPIA's
general criteria to identify risk-susceptible programs limits the
disclosure and transparency of governmentwide improper payments. This
limitation does not further the objectives of IPIA, as programs that do
not meet OMB's criteria of exceeding $10 million and 2.5 percent of
program payments are excluded from agencies' improper payment reporting.
For example, one agency identified three programs with estimated improper
payments exceeding $10 million, but because the estimates did not exceed
2.5 percent of program outlays, they were not included in the
governmentwide improper payments total. In that report, we recommended
that Congress consider amending existing IPIA provisions to define
specific criteria, such as a minimum dollar threshold, agencies should use
to identify which programs and activities are susceptible to significant
improper payments.

In response^12 to posthearing questions related to our December 5, 2006,
testimony,^13 we included suggested language for amending IPIA for better
transparency and disclosure of improper payments reporting. The suggested
language would amend IPIA to define, for purposes of identifying what
programs or activities are susceptible to improper payments, the term
"significant" to mean "annual improper payments under a program or
activity that exceed $10 million." This amendment would be consistent with
the threshold currently identified in IPIA that requires additional
reporting for those agencies with estimates of more than $10 million.

           6.  As you know, current recovery audit requirements only apply to
           overpayments made to agencies' contractors. I suspect that there
           are a number of other areas, however, that would benefit from this
           kind of audit work. Do you think it would be appropriate and
           useful for Congress to require that a broader range of agency
           payments be subjected to recovery auditing?

^11GAO, Improper Payments: Agencies'Fiscal Year 2005 Reporting under the
Improper Payments Information Act Remains Incomplete, GAO-07-92
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2006).

^12GAO, Improper Payments: Posthearing Responses on a December 5, 2006,
Hearing to Assess the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002,
GAO-07-533R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2007).

^13GAO, Improper Payments: Incomplete Reporting under the Improper
Payments Information Act Masks the Extent of the Problem, GAO-07-254T
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 5, 2006).

Subjecting a broader range of agency payments to recovery auditing or
collection procedures may provide useful information to Congress as part
of its decision-making and oversight responsibilities. Currently, IPIA
does not include a reporting requirement on agencies' efforts to recover
improper payments made to program beneficiaries or grantees. However,
existing legislation, such as the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996
(DCIA)^14 and program-specific legislation, provides mechanisms that
agencies can utilize to recoup improper payments.

For example, the Social Security Administration (SSA) reported in its
fiscal year 2006 PAR that it had collected $2.3 billion in program debt.
SSA's internal collection techniques include benefit withholding and
billing to recipients with subsequent follow-up. In addition, SSA uses
external collection techniques authorized by DCIA including the Treasury
Offset Program,^15 credit bureau reporting, and administrative wage
garnishment^16 to recoup improper payments. DCIA requires that agencies
refer eligible debts that an agency has been unable to collect and remain
delinquent more than 180 days to the Department of the Treasury for
payment offset or for cross-servicing. Cross-servicing involves such
actions as locating debtors, issuing demand letters, and referring debts
to private collection agencies.

In another example, HHS under section 306 of the Medicare Prescription
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003,^17 was given authority
to conduct a project to demonstrate the use of recovery audit contractors
in identifying improper payments and recouping overpayments for Medicare
in the Medicare Fee-for-Service program. HHS reported in its fiscal year
2006 PAR that it initiated this 3-year project in March 2005 in the three
states with the highest Medicare utilization rates. HHS reported that it
provided the recovery audit contractors about $167 billion of claims
submitted between fiscal years 2002 and 2005 for review. Of the $167
billion, HHS reported that it is working on recovering $224 million in
claims payments determined to be improper.

As we previously reported and testified before this subcommittee,^18
recovery auditing is a method that agencies can use to recoup detected
improper payments. While we support the use of recovery auditing and
annual reporting of this information, effective internal control serves as
the first line of defense in safeguarding assets and preventing and
detecting errors and fraud. Given the large volume and complexity of
federal payments and historically low recovery rates for certain programs,
it is much more efficient to pay bills and provide benefits properly in
the first place. Aside from minimizing overpayments, 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. Without strong preventive
controls, agencies' internal control activities over disbursements will
not be effective in reducing the risk of improper payments.

^14Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-358 (April 26, 1996)

^15This program includes the offset of certain benefit payments, vendor
payments, and tax refunds.

^16This is a process in which a federal agency orders an employer to
withhold amounts each payday from an employee who owes a debt to the
agency. In turn, the employer pays the withheld amount to the agency.

^17 Pub. L. No. 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066, 2256 (Dec. 8, 2003).

^18GAO-07-92 and GAO-07-635T.

           7.  You note in your written testimony that 18 agencies have
           reported on their recovery audit efforts and have used a variety
           of methods to do that auditing work. Some conducted in-house
           recovery audits, others contracted out their recovery audit
           services, and still others used both in-house and private sector
           auditors. Do you have any sense of whether contractor or in-house
           recovery is more effective?

Beginning with fiscal year 2004, OMB required that applicable agencies
publicly report on their recovery auditing efforts as part of the PAR
reporting of improper payment information. As we reported in our March
2007 testimony, the number of agencies reporting recovery auditing
information, including the dollar amounts identified for recovery and
actually recovered, had increased from fiscal year 2004 to 2006. We also
reported that agencies conducted in-house recovery audits, contracted out
their recovery audit services, or used a combination of the two methods.
However, we have not analyzed the relative effectiveness of the different
types of methods agencies used to recover overpayments.

                                  - - - - - -

We are sending a copy of this report to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, and other interested parties. This report is also
available on GAO's home page at [4]http://www.gao.gov . Should you have
any questions on matters discussed in this report or need additional
information, please contact me at (202) 512-9095 or at
[5][email protected] . Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
Major contributors to this report include Carla Lewis, Assistant Director;
Francine DelVecchio; Christina Quattrociocchi; Heather Rasmussen; Donell
Ries; and Viny Talwar.

Sincerely yours,

McCoy Williams
Director, Financial Management and Assurance

Related GAO Products

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

Improper Payments: Posthearing Responses on a December 5, 2006, Hearing to
Assess the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002. GAO-07-533R.
Washington, D.C.: February 27, 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: Posthearing Questions Related to Agencies Meeting the
Requirements of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002.
GAO-06-1067R. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 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.

Financial Management: Challenges Continue in Meeting Requirements of the
Improper Payments Information Act. GAO-06-581T. Washington, D.C.: April 5,
2006.

Financial Management: Challenges Remain in Meeting Requirements of the
Improper Payments Information Act. GAO-06-482T. Washington, D.C.: March 9,
2006.

Financial Management: Challenges in Meeting Governmentwide Improper
Payment Requirements. GAO-05-907T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005.

Financial Management: Challenges in Meeting Requirements of the Improper
Payments Information Act. GAO-05-605T. Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2005.

Financial Management: Challenges in Meeting Requirements of the Improper
Payments Information Act. GAO-05-417. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2005.

Financial Management: Fiscal Year 2003 Performance and Accountability
Reports Provide Limited Information on Governmentwide Improper Payments.
GAO-04-631T. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2004.

Financial Management: Status of the Governmentwide Efforts to Address
Improper Payment Problems. GAO-04-99. Washington, D.C.: October 17, 2003.

Financial Management: Effective Implementation of the Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002 Is Key to Reducing the Government's Improper
Payments. GAO-03-991T. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2003.

Financial Management: Challenges Remain in Addressing the Government's
Improper Payments. GAO-03-750T. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2003.

Financial Management: Coordinated Approach Needed to Address the
Government's Improper Payments Problems. GAO-02-749. Washington, D.C.:
August 9, 2002.

Financial Management: Improper Payments Reported in Fiscal Year 2000
Financial Statements. GAO-02-131R. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2001.

Executive Guide: Strategies to Manage Improper Payments, Learning From
Public and Private Sector Organizations. GAO-02-69G. Washington, D.C.:
October 2001.

Financial Management: Billions in Improper Payments Continue to Require
Attention. GAO-01-44. Washington, D.C.: October 27, 2000.

Financial Management: Improper Payments Reported in Fiscal Year 1999
Financial Statements. GAO/AIMD-00-261R. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2000.

Financial Management: Increased Attention Needed to Prevent Billions in
Improper Payments. GAO/AIMD-00-10. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 1999.

(195115)

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [6]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
[7]www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: [8]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [9][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [10][email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [11][email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It 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.

References

Visible links
3. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CERT/
4. http://www.gao.gov/
5. mailto:[email protected]
6. http://www.gao.gov/
7. http://www.gao.gov/
8. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
9. mailto:[email protected]
  10. mailto:[email protected]
  11. mailto:[email protected]
*** End of document. ***