Medicare Advantage
Required Audits of Limited Value Gao ID: GAO-08-154T October 16, 2007In fiscal year 2006, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated it spent over $51 billion on the Medicare Advantage program, which serves as an alternative to the traditional feefor- service program. Under the Medicare Advantage program, CMS approves private companies to offer health plan options to Medicare enrollees that include all Medicare-covered services. Many plans also provide supplemental benefits. The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 requires CMS to annually audit the financial records supporting the submissions (i.e., adjusted community rate proposals (ACRP) or bids) of at least onethird of participating organizations. BBA also requires that GAO monitor the audits. This testimony provides information on (1) the ACRP and bid process and related audit requirement, (2) CMS' efforts related to complying with the audit requirement, and (3) factors that cause CMS' audit process to be of limited value.
Before 2006, companies choosing to participate in the Medicare Advantage program were annually required to submit an ACRP to CMS for review and approval. In 2006, a bid submission process replaced the ACRP process. The ACRPs and bids identify the health services the company will provide to Medicare members and the estimated cost for providing those services. CMS contracted with accounting and actuarial firms to perform the required audits. According to our analysis, CMS did not meet the requirement for auditing the financial records of at least one-third of the participating Medicare Advantage organizations for contract years 2001-2005. CMS is planning to conduct other financial reviews of organizations to meet the audit requirement for contract year 2006. However, CMS does not plan to complete the financial reviews until almost 3 years after the bid submission date each contract year, which will affect its ability to address any identified deficiencies in a timely manner. CMS did not consistently ensure that the audit process for contract years 2001-2005 provided information to assess the impact on beneficiaries. After contract year 2003 audits were completed, CMS took steps to determine such impact and identified an impact on beneficiaries of about $35 million. CMS audited contract year 2006 bids for 80 organizations, and 18 had a material finding that affected amounts in approved bids. CMS officials took limited action to follow up on contract year 2006 findings. CMS officials told us they do not plan to sanction or pursue financial recoveries based on these audits because the agency does not have the legal authority to do so. According to our assessment of the statutes, CMS had the authority to pursue financial recoveries, but its rights under contracts for 2001-2005 were limited because its implementing regulations did not require that each contract include provisions to inform organizations about the audits and about the steps that CMS would take to address identified deficiencies. Further, our assessment of the statute is that CMS has the authority to include terms in bid contracts that would allow it to pursue financial recoveries. Without changes in its procedures, CMS will continue to invest resources in audits that will likely provide limited value.
GAO-08-154T, Medicare Advantage: Required Audits of Limited Value
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-154T
entitled 'Medicare Advantage: Required Audits of Limited Value' which
was released on October 17, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittees on Health and Oversight, Committee on Ways and
Means, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST:
Tuesday, October 16, 2007:
medicare advantage:
Required Audits of Limited Value:
Statement of:
Jeffrey C. Steinhoff, Managing Director, Financial Management and
Assurance:
and:
James Cosgrove, Acting Director, Health Care:
Accompanied by:
Kimberly Brooks, Assistant Director, Financial Management and
Assurance:
GAO-08-154T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-154T, a testimony before the Subcommittees on
Health and Oversight, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In fiscal year 2006, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS) estimated it spent over $51 billion on the Medicare Advantage
program, which serves as an alternative to the traditional fee for-
service program. Under the Medicare Advantage program, CMS
approves private companies to offer health plan options to
Medicare enrollees that include all Medicare-covered services. Many
plans also provide supplemental benefits. The Balanced Budget Act
(BBA) of 1997 requires CMS to annually audit the financial records
supporting the submissions (i.e., adjusted community rate proposals
(ACRP) or bids) of at least one-third of participating organizations.
BBA also requires that GAO monitor the audits. This testimony provides
information on (1) the ACRP and bid process and related audit
requirement, (2) CMS‘ efforts related to complying with the audit
requirement, and (3) factors that cause CMS‘ audit process to be of
limited value.
What GAO Found:
Before 2006, companies choosing to participate in the Medicare
Advantage program were annually required to submit an ACRP to CMS for
review and approval. In 2006, a bid submission process replaced the
ACRP process. The ACRPs and bids identify the health services the
company will provide to Medicare members and the estimated cost for
providing those services. CMS contracted with accounting and actuarial
firms to perform the required audits. According to our analysis, CMS
did not meet the requirement for auditing the financial records of at
least one-third of the participating Medicare Advantage organizations
for contract years 2001-2005. CMS is planning to conduct other
financial reviews of organizations to meet the audit requirement for
contract year 2006. However, CMS does not plan to complete the
financial reviews until almost 3 years after the bid submission date
each contract year, which will affect its ability to address any
identified deficiencies in a timely manner.
Figure: Number of Organizations audited (Percent):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of CMS data.
[End of figure]
CMS did not consistently ensure that the audit process for contract
years 2001-2005 provided information to assess the impact on
beneficiaries. After contract year 2003 audits were completed, CMS took
steps to determine such impact and identified an impact on
beneficiaries of about $35 million. CMS audited contract year 2006 bids
for 80 organizations, and 18 had a material finding that affected
amounts in approved bids. CMS officials took limited action to follow
up on contract year 2006 findings. CMS officials told us they do not
plan to sanction or pursue financial recoveries based on these audits
because the agency does not have the legal authority to do so.
According to our assessment of the statutes, CMS had the authority to
pursue financial recoveries, but its rights under contracts for
2001–2005 were limited because its implementing regulations did not
require that each contract include provisions to inform organizations
about the audits and about the steps that CMS would take to address
identified deficiencies. Further, our assessment of the statute is that
CMS has the authority to include terms in bid contracts that would
allow it to pursue financial recoveries. Without changes in its
procedures, CMS will continue to invest resources in audits that will
likely provide limited value.
What GAO Recommends:
In past work, GAO made five recommendations to CMS for meeting the one-
third audit requirement, enhancing its audit follow-up, and improving
the bid audit process. CMS concurred with our recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www/GAO-08-154T]. For more information, contact
Jeanette Franzel at 202-512-9471 or franzelj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairmen and Members of the Subcommittees:
We are pleased to be here today to testify on the results of our review
of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) audit activities
related to Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations that was mandated by
the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997.[Footnote 1] Our results are
documented in our July report, Medicare Advantage: Required Audits of
Limited Value.[Footnote 2] BBA requires CMS to annually audit the
financial records (including data relating to Medicare utilization and
costs) of at least one-third of the organizations participating in the
Medicare Advantage program. BBA also requires us to monitor CMS' audit
activities.
In fiscal year 2006, CMS estimated it spent over $51 billion on the
Medicare Advantage program,[Footnote 3] which serves as an alternative
to Medicare's traditional fee-for-service program. Under Medicare
Advantage, CMS approves private companies to offer health plan options
that include all Medicare-covered services. In addition, many plans
provide supplemental benefits, such as a reduction in the enrollee's
required cost sharing (e.g., beneficiaries' Part B premiums)[Footnote
4] or coverage for items and services not included under the
traditional fee-for-service program, such as dental care. According to
CMS, in fiscal year 2006, over 16 percent of Medicare beneficiaries--or
about 7 million of the approximately 43 million--were enrolled in a
Medicare Advantage plan.
Our review covered CMS audits for contract years 2001 through 2006. In
summary, we found that the required audits were of limited value, which
is similar to what we reported on audits for contract year 2000 in
October 2001, when we last reviewed CMS' audit activities under
BBA.[Footnote 5] The findings in our latest review cause us continuing
concern about the audit process. CMS did not document its process to
determine whether it met the requirement to audit the financial records
of at least one-third of the participating organizations for contract
years 2001 through 2006, and based on our analysis of available CMS
data, CMS did not meet that requirement. For those audits that CMS
completed, it did not consistently ensure that the audit process
provided information needed for assessing the potential impact on
beneficiaries, and CMS took limited action to follow-up on the audit
findings.
Today, we will discuss the findings in our recent report. Specifically,
we will tell you about:
* the adjusted community rate proposal (ACRP) and bid process and the
related audit requirement for organizations that participate in the
Medicare Advantage program,
* CMS' efforts to comply with the audit requirement for organizations'
ACRP and bid submissions, and:
* factors that cause CMS' audit process to be of limited value.
Our prior work on which this testimony is based was performed in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Medicare Advantage ACRP and Bid Process and Related Audit Requirements:
Before 2006, companies choosing to participate in the Medicare
Advantage program were required to annually submit an ACRP to CMS for
review and approval for each plan they intended to offer.[Footnote 6]
The ACRP consisted of two parts--a plan benefit package and the
adjusted community rate (ACR). The plan benefit package contained a
detailed description of the benefits offered, and the ACR contained a
detailed description of the estimated costs to provide the package of
benefits to an enrolled Medicare beneficiary. These costs were to be
calculated based on how much a plan would charge a commercial customer
to provide the same benefit package if its members had the same
expected use of services as Medicare beneficiaries. CMS made payments
to the companies monthly in advance of rendering services.
In 2003, Congress enacted the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement
and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA).[Footnote 7] MMA included
provisions that established a bid submission process to replace the
ACRP submission process, as well as a new prescription drug benefit,
both effective for 2006. Under the bid process, an organization
choosing to participate in Medicare Advantage is required to annually
submit a bid for review and approval for each plan they intend to
offer. The bid submission includes the organization's estimate of the
cost of delivering services (submitted on a bid form) to an enrolled
Medicare beneficiary and a plan benefit package that provides a
detailed description of the benefits offered. In addition, each MA
organization and prescription drug plan that offers prescription drug
benefits under Part D[Footnote 8] is required to submit a separate
prescription drug bid form, a formulary,[Footnote 9] and a plan benefit
package to CMS for its review and approval. On the bid forms, MA
organizations include an estimate of the per-person cost of providing
Medicare-covered services.
BBA requires CMS to annually audit the submissions of one-third of MA
organizations. In defining what constituted an organization for the
purpose of selecting one-third for audit, CMS officials explained that
they determined the number of participating organizations based on the
number of contracts they awarded. Under each contract, an organization
can offer multiple plans. Further, an organization like Humana Inc. can
have multiple contracts.
CMS contracts with accounting and actuarial firms to perform these
audits. For audits of the contract year 2006 bid forms, CMS contracted
in September 2005 with six firms. CMS gave the auditors guidance. It is
important to note that the audit guidance includes procedures to verify
information used in the projection or estimation of costs submitted in
the bids, not actual results or costs each year, as the bids do not
report actual costs.
GAO Analysis Shows CMS Did Not Meet the Audit Requirement:
According to our analysis of available CMS data, CMS did not meet the
statutory requirement to audit the financial records of at least one-
third of the participating MA organizations for contract years 2001
through 2005, nor has it done so yet for the 2006 bid submissions. We
performed an analysis to determine whether CMS had met the requirement
because CMS could not provide documentation to support the method it
used to select the ACRs and bids for audit, nor did CMS document
whether or how it met the one-third requirement for contract years 2001
through 2006. Our analysis shows that between 18.6 and 23.6 percent, or
fewer than one-third, of the MA organizations (as defined by the number
of contracts each year) for contract years 2001 through 2005 were
audited each year. Similarly, we determined that only 13.9 percent of
the MA organizations and prescription drug plans with approved bids for
2006 were audited, as of the end of our review.[Footnote 10] Table 1
summarizes our results.
Table 1: Summary of MA Organizations Audited as a Percentage of Total
MA Organizations and Audit Costs:
Contract year: 2001;
Type of audit: ACRP;
Number of organizations audited[A]: 50;
Number of organizations: 212;
Percentage of organizations audited: 23.6;
Audit costs[B] (dollars in millions): $2.8.
Contract year: 2002;
Type of audit: ACRP;
Number of organizations audited[A]: 40;
Number of organizations: 183;
Percentage of organizations audited: 21.9;
Audit costs[B] (dollars in millions): $2.6.
Contract year: 2003;
Type of audit: ACRP;
Number of organizations audited[A]: 49;
Number of organizations: 220;
Percentage of organizations audited: 22.3;
Audit costs[B] (dollars in millions): $3.8.
Contract year: 2004;
Type of audit: ACRP;
Number of organizations audited[A]: 47;
Number of organizations: 228;
Percentage of organizations audited: 20.6;
Audit costs[B] (dollars in millions): $3.4.
Contract year: 2005;
Type of audit: ACRP;
Number of organizations audited[A]: 59;
Number of organizations: 318;
Percentage of organizations audited: 18.6;
Audit costs[B] (dollars in millions): $2.6.
Contract year: 2006;
Type of audit: Bid;
Number of organizations audited[A]: 80;
Number of organizations: 577;
Percentage of organizations audited: 13.9;
Audit costs[B] (dollars in millions): $3.3.
Source: GAO analysis of CMS data and ACRP and bid audit reports.
[A] In determining what constituted an organization for audit purposes,
CMS determined the number of organizations based on the contract level.
Several plans may be offered under one contract.
[B] Audit costs include only amounts awarded to audit contractors and
do not include CMS staff costs.
[End of table]
As stated earlier, CMS selects organizations to meet the one-third
audit requirement based on the number of contracts awarded and not the
total number of plans offered under each contract. However, to present
additional perspective, we also analyzed the percentage of plans
audited of the total number of plans offered by each audited
organization. Our analysis shows that with the exception of contract
year 2002, the level of audit coverage achieved by CMS audits has
progressively decreased in terms of the percentage of plans audited for
those organizations that were audited. Audit coverage has also
decreased in terms of the percentage of plans audited of all plans
offered by participating organizations each contract year. In contract
year 2006, a large increase in the number of bid submissions meant that
the 159 plans audited reflected only 3.2 percent of all the plans
offered. Table 2 summarizes our analysis.
Table 2: Summary of Audited Plans as a Percentage of Those Offered by
Audited Organizations and All Participating Organizations:
Contract year: 2001;
Type of audit: ACRP;
Number of plans audited for audited organizations: 165;
Number of plans offered by audited organizations: 216;
Percentage of plans audited of all plans offered by audited
organizations: 76.4;
Number of plans offered by all participating organizations: 743;
Percentage of plans audited of all plans offered by participating
organizations: 22.2.
Contract year: 2002;
Type of audit: ACRP;
Number of plans audited for audited organizations: 84;
Number of plans offered by audited organizations: 93;
Percentage of plans audited of all plans offered by audited
organizations: 90.3;
Number of plans offered by all participating organizations: 554;
Percentage of plans audited of all plans offered by participating
organizations: 15.2.
Contract year: 2003;
Type of audit: ACRP;
Number of plans audited for audited organizations: 137;
Number of plans offered by audited organizations: 254;
Percentage of plans audited of all plans offered by audited
organizations: 53.9;
Number of plans offered by all participating organizations: 770;
Percentage of plans audited of all plans offered by participating
organizations: 17.8.
Contract year: 2004;
Type of audit: ACRP;
Number of plans audited for audited organizations: 124;
Number of plans offered by audited organizations: 257;
Percentage of plans audited of all plans offered by audited
organizations: 48.2;
Number of plans offered by all participating organizations: 967;
Percentage of plans audited of all plans offered by participating
organizations: 12.8.
Contract year: 2005;
Type of audit: ACRP;
Number of plans audited for audited organizations: 100;
Number of plans offered by audited organizations: 476;
Percentage of plans audited of all plans offered by audited
organizations: 21.0;
Number of plans offered by all participating organizations: 1,865;
Percentage of plans audited of all plans offered by participating
organizations: 5.3.
Contract year: 2006;
Type of audit: Bid;
Number of plans audited for audited organizations: 159;
Number of plans offered by audited organizations: 1,194;
Percentage of plans audited of all plans offered by audited
organizations: 13.3;
Number of plans offered by all participating organizations: 4,920;
Percentage of plans audited of all plans offered by participating
organizations: 3.2.
[End of table]
Source: GAO analysis of CMS data and ACRP and bid audit reports.
Regarding contract years 2001 through 2004, CMS officials told us that
they did not know how the MA organizations were selected for audit, and
the documentation supporting the selections was either not created or
not retained. For contract year 2005 audits, CMS officials told us that
the selection criteria included several factors. They said that the
criteria considered included whether the MA organization had been
audited previously and whether it had significant issues.
With respect to contract year 2006, CMS officials acknowledged the one-
third requirement, but they stated that they did not intend for the
audits of the 2006 bid submissions to meet the one-third audit
requirement. They explained that they plan to conduct other reviews of
the financial records of MA organizations and prescription drug plans
to meet the requirement for 2006. In September 2006, CMS hired a
contractor to develop the agency's overall approach to conducting
reviews to meet the one-third requirement. Draft audit procedures
prepared by the contractor in May 2007, indicate that CMS plans to
review solvency, risk scores, related parties, direct medical and
administrative costs, and, where relevant, regional preferred provider
organizations' (RPPO) cost reconciliation reports for MA bids. For Part
D bids, CMS indicated it also plans to review other areas, including
beneficiaries' true out-of-pocket costs.[Footnote 11] However, when our
review ended, CMS had not yet clearly laid out how these reviews will
be conducted to meet the one-third requirement. Further, CMS is not
likely to complete these other financial reviews until almost 3 years
after the bid submission date (see figure 1) for each contract year, in
part because it must first reconcile payment data that prescription
drug plans are not required to submit to CMS until 6 months after the
contract year is over. Such an extended cycle for conducting these
reviews greatly limits their usefulness to CMS and hinders CMS' ability
to recommend and implement timely actions to address identified
deficiencies in the MA organizations' and prescription drug plans' bid
processes.
Figure 1: Time Elapsed from Contract Year 2006 Bid Submissions to
Reviews to Meet Audit Requirement:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
CMS' Audit Process Was of Limited Value:
In its audits for contract years 2001-2005, CMS did not consistently
ensure that the audit process provided information needed for assessing
the potential impact of errors on beneficiaries' benefits or payments
to the MA organizations. The auditors reported findings ranging from
lack of supporting documentation to overstating or understating certain
costs, but did not identify how the errors affected beneficiary
benefits, copayments, or premiums. In addition, although the auditors
categorized their results as findings and observations, with findings
being more significant, depending on their materiality to the average
payment rate reported in the ACR, the distinction between findings and
observations, was based on judgment, and therefore varied among the
different auditors. In our 2001 report, we reported that CMS planned to
require auditors, where applicable, to quantify in their audit reports
the overall impact of errors.[Footnote 12] Further, during the work for
the 2001 report, CMS officials stated that they were in the process of
determining the impact on beneficiaries and crafting a strategy for
audit follow-up and resolution. CMS did not initiate any actions to
attempt to determine such impact until after the contract year 2003
audits were completed. CMS took steps to determine such impact and
identified a net of about $35 million from the contract year 2003
audits that beneficiaries could have received in additional
benefits.[Footnote 13] The only audit follow-up action that CMS has
taken regarding the ACR audits was to provide copies of the audit
reports to the MA organizations and instruct them to take action in
subsequent ACR filings.
In CMS' audits of the 2006 bid submissions, 18 (or about 23 percent) of
the 80 organizations audited had material findings that have an impact
on beneficiaries or plan payments approved in bids. CMS defined
material findings as those that would result in changes in the total
bid amount of 1 percent or more or in the estimate for the costs per
member per month of 10 percent or more for any bid element.[Footnote
14] CMS officials told us that they will use the results of the bid
audits to help organizations improve their methods in preparing bids in
subsequent years and to help improve the overall bid process.
Specifically, they told us they could improve the bid forms, bid
instructions, training, and bid review process.
CMS' audit follow-up process has not involved pursuing financial
recoveries from Medicare Advantage organizations based on audit results
even when information was available on deficiencies or errors that
could impact beneficiaries. CMS officials told us they do not plan to
pursue financial recoveries from MA organizations based on the results
of ACR or bid audits because the agency does not have the legal
authority to do so. According to our assessment of the statutes, CMS
has the authority to pursue financial recoveries, but its rights under
contracts for 2001 through 2005 are limited because its implementing
regulations did not require that each contract include provisions to
inform organizations about the audits and about the steps that CMS
would take to address identified deficiencies, including pursuit of
financial recoveries. Regarding the bid process that began in 2006, our
assessment of the statutes is that CMS has the authority to include
terms in bid contracts that would allow it to pursue financial
recoveries based on bid audit results.[Footnote 15] CMS also has the
authority to sanction organizations, but it has not.
CMS officials believe the bid audits provide a "sentinel or deterrent
effect" for organizations to properly prepare their bids because they
do not know when the bids may be selected for a detailed audit. Given
the current audit coverage, CMS is unlikely to achieve significant
deterrent effect, however, because only 13.9 percent of participating
organizations for contract 2006 have been audited.
Concluding Remarks:
Appropriate oversight and accountability mechanisms are key to
protecting the federal government's interests in using taxpayer
resources prudently. When CMS falls short in meeting the statutory
audit requirements and in a timely manner resolving the findings
arising from those audits, the intended oversight is not achieved and
opportunities are lost to determine whether organizations have
reasonably estimated the costs to provide benefits to Medicare
enrollees. Inaction or untimely audit resolution also undermines the
presumed deterrent effect of audit efforts.
While the statutory audit requirement does not expressly state the
objective of the audits or how CMS should address the results of the
audits, the statute does not preclude CMS from including terms in its
contracts that allow it to pursue financial recoveries based on audit
results. If CMS maintains the view that statute does not allow it to
take certain actions, the utility of CMS' efforts is of limited value.
In our recent report, we made several recommendations to the CMS
Administrator to improve processes and procedures related to its
meeting the one-third audit requirement and audit follow-up. We also
recommended that CMS amend its implementing regulations for the
Medicare Advantage Program and Prescription Drug Program to provide
that all contracts CMS enters into with MA organizations and
prescription drug plan sponsors include terms that inform these
organizations of the audits and give CMS authority to address
identified deficiencies, including pursuit of financial recoveries. We
further recommended that if CMS does not believe it has the authority
to amend its implementing regulations for these purposes, it should ask
Congress for express authority to do so. In response to our report, CMS
concurred with our recommendations and stated it is in the process of
implementing some of our recommendations.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For information about this statement, please contact Jeanette Franzel,
Director, Financial Management and Assurance, at (202) 512-9471 or
franzelj@gao.gov or James Cosgrove, Acting Director, Health Care, at
(202) 512-7029 or cosgrovej@gao.gov. Individuals who made key
contributions to this testimony include Kimberly Brooks (Assistant
Director), Christine Brudevold, Paul Caban, Abe Dymond, Jason Kirwan,
and Diane Morris.
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 105-33, tit. IV, § 4001, 111 Stat. 251, 320 (Aug. 5,
1997) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-27(d)(1)).
[2] GAO, Medicare Advantage: Required Audits of Limited Value, GAO-07-
945 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2007).
[3] Total Medicare outlays in fiscal year 2006 were $381.9 billion.
[4] Medicare Part B provides coverage for certain physician, outpatient
hospital, laboratory, and other services to beneficiaries who pay
monthly premiums.
[5] GAO, Medicare+Choice Audits: Lack of Audit Follow-up Limits
Usefulness, GAO-02-33 (Washington, D.C.: October 9, 2001).
[6] Participating companies or sponsors can offer multiple plans. The
term "plan" refers to a specific package of benefits offered.
[7] Pub. L. No. 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066 (Dec. 8, 2003).
[8] Part D is the optional outpatient prescription drug benefit for
Medicare established by MMA.
[9] The formulary is a listing of prescription medications that are
approved for use or coverage by the plan and that will be dispensed
through participating pharmacies to covered enrollees.
[10] The 80 organizations audited for contract year 2006 included 60 MA
organizations with prescription drug plans and 20 prescription drug
plans.
[11] True out-of-pocket costs are amounts paid by the enrollee or on
behalf of the enrollee for covered Part D drugs that count toward the
out-of-pocket limit that must be reached before the catastrophic
benefit becomes available.
[12] GAO-02-33, p. 20.
[13] Information on the impact of errors identified in contract year
2004 and contract year 2005 audits was not completed or not available
at the time we completed our recent review.
[14] Findings also include any serious failure to follow applicable
Actuarial Standards of Practice. Materiality for identifying
observations included all other errors or deviations from the
instructions or best actuarial practices that did not meet the criteria
for being classified as findings.
[15] 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-27(e)(1); 42 C.F.R. § 422.504(j). This provision
also applies to prescription drug plans under Part D. 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-
112(b)(3)(D).
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail 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, DC 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548:
