December 9, 2021

News

News Network

Bahrain Travel Advisory

14 min read

Reconsider travel to Bahrain due to COVID-19.

Read the Department of State’s COVID-19 page before you plan any international travel.    

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a Level 3 Travel Health Notice for Bahrain due to COVID-19.  

While the Bahrain airport has remained operational without interruption, the Government of Bahrain has implemented enhanced screening and quarantine measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19, including:

  • All visas upon arrival have been suspended.  Anyone attempting to enter Bahrain must have a Bahrain residence permit or secure a visa in advance by visiting www.evisa.gov.bh.
  • All arriving passengers will be tested for COVID-19.
  • All arriving passengers must quarantine for 10 days, regardless of the outcome of the COVID-19 test.
  • The King Fahd Causeway connecting Bahrain and Saudi Arabia remains closed to non-commercial traffic.

Visit the Embassy’s COVID-19 page for more information on COVID-19 in Bahrain.

Read the country information page

Due to risks to civil aviation operating within the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman region, including Bahrain, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued an advisory Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and/or a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR). For more information U.S. citizens should consult the Federal Aviation Administration’s Prohibitions, Restrictions and Notices.

Last Update: Reissued with updates to COVID-19 information.

News Network

  • Puerto Rico Legislator and Two Capitol Employees Indicted for Theft and Bribery
    In Crime News
    On Wednesday, a federal grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned an eight-count indictment against legislator Nelson Del Valle Colon (Del Valle), a member of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, as well as two of his employees, Nickolle Santos-Estrada (Santos) and her mother Mildred Estrada-Rojas (Estrada), for their alleged participation in a multi-year theft, bribery, and kickback conspiracy.
    [Read More…]
  • Sanctioning Russia-linked Disinformation Network for its Involvement in Attempts to Influence U.S. Election
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • NASA’s Perseverance Rover Will Carry First Spacesuit Materials to Mars
    In Space
    In a Q&A, spacesuit [Read More…]
  • Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Karen Donfried on the Secretary’s Upcoming Travel to Latvia and Sweden
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Karen Donfried, [Read More…]
  • Defense Infrastructure: Documentation Lacking to Fully Support How DOD Determined Specifications for the Landstuhl Replacement Medical Center
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO FoundDepartment of Defense (DOD) officials considered current beneficiary population data, contingency operations, and most of the expected changes in troop strength when planning for the replacement medical center. However, recently announced posture changes in January 2012 have yet to be assessed for their impact on the facility. DOD estimates that the replacement medical center will provide health care for nearly 250,000 beneficiaries. A majority of those who are expected to receive health care from the center come from within a 55-mile radius of the facility. DOD officials told us that because the replacement medical center was designed for peacetime operations—with the capacity to expand to meet the needs of contingency operations—reductions in ongoing contingency operations in Afghanistan would not have an impact on facility requirements. At the time of this review, DOD officials said they were in the process of assessing proposed changes in posture to better understand their possible impact on the sizing of the replacement medical center.DOD officials incorporated patient quality of care standards as well as environmentally friendly design elements in determining facility requirements for the replacement medical center. DOD also determined the size of the facility based on its projected patient workload. Internal control standards require the creation and maintenance of adequate documentation, which should be clear and readily available for examination to inform decision making. However, GAO’s review of the documentation DOD provided in support of its facility requirements showed (1) inconsistencies in how DOD applied projected patient workload data and planning criteria to determine the appropriate size for individual medical departments, (2) some areas where the documentation did not clearly demonstrate how planners applied criteria to generate requirements, and (3) calculation errors throughout. Without clear documentation of key analyses—including information on how adjustments to facility requirements were made—and without correct calculations, stakeholders and decision makers lack reasonable assurances that the replacement medical center will be appropriately sized to meet the needs of the expected beneficiary population in Europe.DOD’s process for developing the approximately $1.2 billion cost estimate for the replacement medical center was substantially consistent with many cost estimating best practices, such as cross-checking major cost elements to confirm similar results. However, DOD minimally documented the data sources, calculations, and estimating methodologies it used in developing the cost estimate. Additionally, DOD anticipates that the new facility will become the hub of a larger medical-services-related campus, for which neither cost estimates nor time frames have yet been developed. Without a cost estimate for the facility that includes detailed documentation, DOD cannot fully demonstrate that the proposed replacement medical center will provide adequate health care capacity at the current estimated cost. Further, DOD and Congress may not have the information they need to make fully informed decisions about the facility.Why GAO Did This StudyLandstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) is DOD’s only tertiary medical center in Europe that provides specialized care for servicemembers, retirees, and their dependents. Wounded servicemembers requiring critical care are medically evacuated from overseas operations to the 86th Medical Group clinic at Ramstein Air Base to receive stabilization care before being transported to LRMC for intensive care. According to DOD, both facilities were constructed in the 1950s and are undersized to meet current and projected workload requirements. DOD plans to consolidate both facilities into a single medical center at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion. In this report, GAO (1) describes how DOD considered changes in posture and the beneficiary population when developing facility requirements, (2) assesses DOD’s process for determining facility requirements, and (3) reviews DOD’s process to develop the facility’s cost estimate. GAO examined posture planning documentation, beneficiary demographic data, plans for the replacement medical center, and relevant DOD guidance, as well as interviewed relevant DOD officials.
    [Read More…]
  • United States Obtains $140 Million in False Claims Act Judgments Against South Carolina Pain Management Clinics, Drug Testing Laboratories and a Substance Abuse Counseling Center
    In Crime News
    On Thursday, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina entered default judgments for the United States totaling $136,025,077 against Oaktree Medical Centre P.C. (Oaktree), FirstChoice Healthcare P.C. (FirstChoice), Labsource LLC (Labsource), Pain Management Associates of the Carolinas LLC (PMA of the Carolinas) and Pain Management Associates of North Carolina P.C. (PMA of North Carolina).
    [Read More…]
  • Joint Statement on Venezuela Negotiations
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Post-Government Employment Restrictions: DOD Could Further Enhance Its Compliance Efforts Related to Former Employees Working for Defense Contractors
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found Situations in which senior and acquisition officials leave the Department of Defense (DOD) and go to work for defense contractors can lead to conflicts of interest and affect public confidence in the government. There are federal laws that place limitations on the employment of former DOD officials. The 14 major defense contractors GAO reviewed hired about 1,700 recent former DOD senior civilian and military officials, such as a general or admiral, or former acquisition officials (see table). 2019 Employment of Former Department of Defense (DOD) Personnel by the 14 Contractors GAO Reviewed Category of former DOD personnel potentially subject to post-government employment restrictions Number of personnel who left DOD service from 2014 through 2019 Number employed in 2019 by the 14 contractors GAO reviewed Military and civilian senior or acquisition officials 100,660 1,718 All other military and civilian employees 1,397,222 35,314 Total 1,497,882 37,032 Source: GAO analysis of DOD and Internal Revenue Service data. | GAO-21-104311 GAO found that DOD has improved certain practices to help ensure compliance with post-government employment (PGE) restrictions, including: processes for issuing and maintaining ethics opinion letters (written opinions DOD provides to its former officials seeking private sector employment), and training to increase DOD employee awareness about and understanding of PGE restrictions. In 2011, DOD modified its acquisition regulations to require that contractors—when submitting proposals in response to DOD contract solicitations—represent their employees' compliance with several PGE restrictions. DOD has not considered incorporating a recent restriction on lobbying activities into that regulation. DOD officials noted that the restriction was not identified for potential regulatory action when it was enacted, and they have not considered doing so. Instead, DOD has issued guidance to defense personnel informing them of their responsibilities. However, without assessing whether to update the regulation to require that contractors represent their employees' compliance with the lobbying provision, DOD may be missing an opportunity to create a shared sense of accountability between the employees and the contractors who hire them, and a means of ensuring that DOD does not do business with companies whose employees violate the lobbying restriction with their employers' knowledge. The 14 defense contractors GAO reviewed reported that they use various methods to comply with PGE restrictions. GAO found that the specific practices differed by type of contractor. Contractors that develop and produce weapon systems reported having more practices in place to promote compliance with PGE restrictions than did contractors that generally provide commercial products and services. Why GAO Did This Study Each year, civilian and military personnel leave DOD and go to work for contractors that do business with DOD. These individuals are potentially covered by laws restricting their new employment activities. The laws—some of which include penalties for violations—seek in part to protect against conflicts of interest and to promote public trust in the integrity of the government's decision-making processes, which facilitate the award of contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 included a provision for GAO to update its 2008 report on major defense contractors' recent employment of former DOD officials. This report (1) identifies the extent to which major defense contractors employed potentially covered ex-DOD officials in 2019, and (2) examines practices DOD and contractors use related to contractors hiring former DOD officials. GAO reviewed and surveyed 14 selected defense contractors with obligations above a certain dollar threshold. GAO also reviewed DOD documentation, and interviewed agency officials and contractor representatives.
    [Read More…]
  • Human Capital: Administration and Implementation of the General Schedule Locality Pay Program
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found To help determine the locality-based pay adjustments for federal employees paid under the General Schedule (GS) pay system, the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) created the President's Pay Agent (Pay Agent) and Federal Salary Council (council) to annually recommend locality pay amounts to the President and modifications to locality pay areas (see figure below). Annual Process for the General Schedule Locality Pay Program aDesignated by the President, the Pay Agent is comprised of the Secretary of Labor and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and OPM. The council is comprised of three experts in labor relations and pay policy and six representatives of employee organizations representing large numbers of General Schedule employees. Since 1994, the council has recommended defining locality pay areas using the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) statistical area definitions, which provide nationally consistent delineations for a set of geographic areas. Based on the recommendations of the council, the Pay Agent has updated the locality areas, as needed, when OMB updates its statistical area definitions. Currently, the council uses definitions from OMB's April 2018 update. OMB issued an update in March 2020. Some of the council members told GAO that the council plans to discuss these updates once the administration appoints new council members. Using the 2020 definitions could affect GS employees' pay if locations within existing locality pay areas were moved to separate locality pay areas (higher or lower paying). In its 2019 memorandum, the council identified five alternatives to the survey methodology for setting locality pay, including verifying Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) survey data with other human capital data—such as attrition data—and establishing a commission to periodically review federal civilian compensation. According to council members, these alternatives represent the most recent discussion by the council of different methodologies. This is also consistent with the results of GAO's literature search. Why GAO Did This Study FEPCA authorized annual locality-based pay adjustments for GS employees. The act's goal was to reduce reported pay gaps between federal and nonfederal employees in specific areas of the U.S. to no more than 5 percent. While this goal has not been met since its authorization in 1994, some amount of locality pay increases has been provided for 22 of the 28 years since FEPCA took effect. House Report 116-442 accompanying the bill that would become the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 included a provision for GAO to review the administration of the locality pay program. This report describes (1) the process for administering the GS locality pay program, including establishing or modifying existing geographical boundaries for locality pay areas and the amount of time required for such changes; (2) the status of incorporating OMB's statistical area definitions to determine the boundaries for locality pay areas; and (3) the council's potential alternatives for administering and implementing the locality pay program. GAO reviewed legislation, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations, council memorandums and Pay Agent reports, and BLS, OMB, and OPM documents. GAO also interviewed OPM and BLS officials, OMB staff, and council members; and conducted a literature search. The Department of Labor and OPM provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. OMB had no comments. For more information, contact Jeff Arkin at (202) 512-6806 or arkinj@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Puerto Rico Mayor Pleads Guilty to Accepting Bribes in Exchange for Millions in Municipal Contracts
    In Crime News
    A mayor pleaded guilty yesterday in Puerto Rico to engaging in a bribery scheme in which he received cash payments in exchange for awarding municipal contracts to a particular company (Company A). Relatedly, a Puerto Rico contractor was arrested today for allegedly paying bribes and kickbacks to the mayor.
    [Read More…]
  • Medicare Severe Wound Care: Spending Declines May Reflect Site of Care Changes; Limited Information Is Available on Quality
    In U.S GAO News
    GAO's analysis of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data show that in fiscal year 2018, 287,547 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries had inpatient stays that included care for severe wounds. These wounds include those where the base of the wound is covered by dead tissue or non-healing surgical wounds. About 73 percent of the inpatient stays occurred in acute care hospitals (ACH), and a smaller percentage of stays occurred in post-acute care facilities. Specifically, about 16 percent of stays were at skilled nursing facilities (SNF), and about 7 percent were at long-term care hospitals (LTCH). CMS data show that Medicare spending on stays for severe wound care was $2.01 billion in fiscal year 2018, representing a decline of about 2 percent from fiscal year 2016, when spending was about $2.06 billion. Spending declined as a result of decreases in both the total number of these stays, as well as spending per stay, which both decreased by about 1 percent. The decrease in per stay spending was likely driven, in part, by a change in where beneficiaries received care. CMS data show fewer severe wound care stays in LTCHs, which tend to be paid higher payment rates. At the same time, more severe wound care stays were at two other types of facilities that tend to be paid lower payment rates: ACHs and inpatient rehabilitation facilities. GAO's analysis of CMS data also show that, while the number of LTCHs that billed Medicare for severe wound care decreased by about 7 percent from fiscal years 2016 to 2018, Medicare beneficiaries continued to have access to other severe wound care providers. For example, CMS data show that most beneficiaries resided within 10 miles of an ACH or SNF that provided severe wound care in fiscal year 2018. Figure: Percentage of Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Residing within 10 Miles of a Health Care Facility That Provided Any Severe Wound Care, by Facility Type, Fiscal Year 2018 Note: The “other” category includes facilities such as psychiatric hospitals or units. There is limited information on how or whether the decrease in LTCH care for severe wounds may have affected the quality of severe wound care Medicare beneficiaries receive. For example, CMS collects information on the percentage of patients with new or worsened pressure ulcers at post-acute care facilities, but it does not measure the quality of care they receive. Medicare beneficiaries with serious health conditions, such as strokes, are prone to developing severe wounds due to complications that often lead to immobility and prolonged pressure on the skin. These beneficiaries may require a long-term inpatient stay at an ACH or a post-acute care facility, such as an LTCH. LTCHs treat patients who require care for longer than 25 days, on average. In 2018, LTCHs represented about $4.2 billion in Medicare expenditures. Prior to fiscal year 2016, LTCHs received a higher payment rate for treating Medicare beneficiaries than ACHs. Beginning in fiscal year 2016, a dual payment system was phased in that paid LTCHs a rate similar to ACHs for some beneficiaries and a higher rate for beneficiaries that met certain criteria. As this payment system has moved from partial to full implementation, lawmakers had questions about how it may affect beneficiaries' severe wound care. The 21st Century Cures Act included a provision for GAO to review severe wound care provided to Medicare beneficiaries. This report describes facilities where Medicare beneficiaries received severe wound care, Medicare severe wound care spending, and what is known about the dual payment system's effect on access and quality. GAO analyzed Medicare severe wound care access and spending data for fiscal years 2016 and 2018 (the most recent data available); reviewed reports; and interviewed CMS officials, researchers, and national wound care stakeholders. HHS provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which were incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact James Cosgrove at (202) 512-7114 or cosgrovej@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Hungary Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Obtains $20,000 Settlement Against Tampa, Florida Towing Company for Unlawfully Selling Deployed Servicemember’s Car
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department today announced that Target Recovery Towing Inc. (Target) has agreed to enter into a court-enforceable consent order to resolve allegations that it failed to obtain a legally required court order before auctioning off a car belonging to a U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant who was deployed overseas. 
    [Read More…]
  • Commercial Vehicle Security: Risk-Based Approach Needed to Secure the Commercial Vehicle Sector
    In U.S GAO News
    Numerous incidents around the world have highlighted the vulnerability of commercial vehicles to terrorist acts. Commercial vehicles include over 1 million highly diverse truck and intercity bus firms. Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has primary federal responsibility for ensuring the security of the commercial vehicle sector, while vehicle operators are responsible for implementing security measures for their firms. GAO was asked to examine: (1) the extent to which TSA has assessed security risks for commercial vehicles; (2) actions taken by key stakeholders to mitigate identified risks; and (3) TSA efforts to coordinate its security strategy with other federal, state, and private sector stakeholders. GAO reviewed TSA plans, assessments, and other documents; visited a nonrandom sample of 26 commercial truck and bus companies of varying sizes, locations, and types of operations; and interviewed TSA and other federal and state officials and industry representatives.TSA has taken actions to evaluate the security risks associated with the commercial vehicle sector, including assessing threats and initiating vulnerability assessments, but more work remains to fully gauge security risks. Risk assessment uses a combined analysis of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to estimate the likelihood of terrorist attacks and the severity of their impact. TSA conducted threat assessments of the commercial vehicle sector and has also cosponsored a vulnerability assessment pilot program in Missouri. However, TSA's threat assessments generally have not identified the likelihood of specific threats, as required by DHS policy. TSA has also not determined the scope, method, and time frame for completing vulnerability assessments of the commercial vehicle sector. In addition, TSA has not conducted consequence assessments, or leveraged the consequence assessments of other sectors. As a result of limitations with its threat, vulnerability, and consequence assessments, TSA cannot be sure that its approach for securing the commercial vehicle sector addresses the highest priority security needs. Moreover, TSA has not developed a plan or time frame to complete a risk assessment of the sector. Nor has TSA completed a report on commercial trucking security as required by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act (9/11 Commission Act). Key government and industry stakeholders have taken actions to strengthen the security of commercial vehicles, but TSA has not assessed the effectiveness of federal programs. TSA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) have implemented programs to strengthen security, particularly those emphasizing the protection of hazardous materials. States have also worked collaboratively to strengthen commercial vehicle security through their transportation and law enforcement officials' associations, and the establishment of fusion centers. TSA also has begun developing and using performance measures to monitor the progress of its program activities to secure the commercial vehicle sector, but has not developed measures to assess the effectiveness of these actions in mitigating security risks. Without such information, TSA will be limited in its ability to measure its success in enhancing commercial vehicle security. While TSA has also taken actions to improve coordination with federal, state, and industry stakeholders, more can be done to ensure that these coordination efforts enhance security for the sector. TSA signed joint agreements with DOT and supported the establishment of intergovernmental and industry councils to strengthen collaboration. TSA and DOT completed an agreement to avoid duplication of effort as required by the 9/11 Commission Act. However, some state and industry officials GAO interviewed reported that TSA had not clearly defined stakeholder roles and responsibilities consistent with leading practices for collaborating agencies. TSA has not developed a means to monitor and assess the effectiveness of its coordination efforts. Without enhanced coordination with the states, TSA will have difficulty expanding its vulnerability assessments.
    [Read More…]
  • Jury convicts Houstonian in human smuggling conspiracy
    In Justice News
    A federal jury has [Read More…]
  • 2021 International Women of Courage Award Recipients Announced
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Attack on Civilians in Afghanistan
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • Federal Rulemaking: Deregulatory Executive Orders Did Not Substantially Change Selected Agencies’ Processes or Procedures
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found GAO found that the five selected agencies—the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security (DHS), the Interior, and Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—implemented deregulatory executive order (EO) requirements, most with limited changes to their existing regulatory processes and procedures. Generally, these EOs required agencies to reduce the total number of regulations and overall regulatory costs. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) reported that collectively the federal government met the two primary goals of the EOs by (1) implementing two deregulatory actions for every new regulatory action, and (2) achieving net cost savings (see table). Four of the five selected agencies reported having regulatory cost savings. DHS received a regulatory budget allowance from OIRA for this requirement due to DHS's need to implement priority immigration regulations. However, GAO's analysis of OIRA's data showed the reporting of agencies' deregulatory actions could be overstated partly because OIRA's overall reporting compared all agency deregulatory actions to only significant regulatory actions. A significant regulatory action is one that results in a $100 million or greater effect on the economy in any given year, or meets certain other criteria. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs' (OIRA) Reported Actions, Projected Costs, and Projected Cost-Savings by Selected Agencies, Fiscal Years 2017-2020 Dollars are net present value in millions Selected agencies Non-significant deregulatory actions Significant deregulatory actions Significant regulatory actions Projected Costs and (cost savings) Commerce 65 4 4 ($1,144) Homeland Security 26 8 8 $37,153 Interior 41 10 0 ($6,254) Transportation 47 16 6 ($100,484) Environmental Protection Agency 47 22 14 ($89,196) Selected agencies' total 226 60 32 ($159,925) Source: GAO analysis of OIRA and reginfo.gov data. | GAO-21-104305 Note: OIRA allocated an increase in DHS's regulatory budget to implement priority immigration regulations. The Office of Management and Budget's guidance implementing EO 13771 allowed agencies to include alternative actions as a means of achieving deregulatory goals. Alternative actions are those that were not promulgated through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process, such as guidance documents, information collection requests, and other directives. GAO found that of the 286 deregulatory actions reported by the five selected agencies, at least 28 (or about 10 percent) were alternative actions. GAO also found that the five selected agencies did not identify or implement changes to their regulatory enforcement activities in response to EO 13771. For example, officials from some agencies told GAO that any changes in regulatory enforcement activities that occurred while the EO was in effect were not in response to, nor a consequence of, the EO. Why GAO Did This Study From January 2017, until they were revoked in 2021, three EOs required agencies to reduce the total number of federal regulations and regulatory costs and burden. (1) EO 13771 required agencies to eliminate two deregulatory actions for every new regulatory action; (2) EO 13777 established regulatory reform task forces within the agencies, and (3) EO 13924 directed agencies to identify regulatory actions that may inhibit economic recovery in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. GAO was asked to review these deregulatory EOs to better understand the processes and procedures agencies used to implement them. This report examines (1) selected agencies' processes and procedures to implement the EOs and achieve and report on their goals; (2) their alternatives to rulemaking used in response to the EOs; and (3) how enforcement activities changed in response to EO 13771. GAO selected five agencies that collectively implemented more than half of all actions under the deregulatory EOs—Commerce, DHS, Interior, DOT, and EPA—and reviewed their regulatory policies and procedures, and interviewed relevant agency officials. GAO reviewed OIRA's reports and interviewed agency officials. GAO also identified 20 nonfederal entities and interviewed a nongeneralizable selection of representatives from six that reflected a mix of industry groups, environmental policy advocates, and trade organizations. For more information, contact Yvonne D. Jones at (202) 512-6806 or jonesy@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Joint Statement Calling for a Ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Medicare: Information on the Transition to Alternative Payment Models by Providers in Rural, Health Professional Shortage, or Underserved Areas
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found In recent years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has developed and implemented new Medicare payment models, including alternative payment models (APM), in an effort to shift from paying providers based on the volume of care provided to the quality of care provided (value-based payments). One type of APM, Advanced APMs, are designed to encourage providers to share in both the financial rewards and risk of caring for Medicare beneficiaries. Providers must meet certain requirements to take part in an Advanced APM, such as using certified electronic health record technology. GAO's analysis of CMS data found that a smaller percentage of providers eligible to participate in Advanced APMs (eligible providers) in rural or health professional shortage areas (shortage areas) participated in them each year from 2017 through 2019 compared to providers not located in these areas. Percentage of Medicare Providers in Rural or Shortage Areas and Providers Not Located in These Areas Who Participated in Advanced APMs, 2017 – 2019 Providers in rural, shortage, or medically underserved areas face financial, technology, and other challenges in transitioning to APMs, including Advanced APMs, according to CMS officials and stakeholders GAO interviewed. These include a lack of capital to finance the upfront costs of transitioning to an APM, including purchasing electronic health record technology; and challenges acquiring or conducting data analysis necessary for participation. CMS has implemented models with certain features that may help providers in rural, shortage, or underserved areas transition to APMs, including Advanced APMs. This includes models that offer upfront funding to help with costs associated with participating in the APM, such as hiring additional staff; and technical assistance, such as education about APMs, to support providers. Why GAO Did This Study In 2017, in response to the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, CMS implemented the Quality Payment Program—a payment incentive program intended to reward high-quality, efficient care. Advanced APMs, which offer a 5 percent incentive payment for Medicare providers seeing a certain percentage of their Medicare beneficiaries through the Advanced APM, are one part of this program. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 included a provision for GAO to examine transitions to APMs for providers in rural areas, shortage areas, or medically underserved areas. This report describes (1) participation in Advanced APMs by providers in rural or shortage areas; (2) challenges providers in rural, shortage, or underserved areas face in transitioning to APMs, including Advanced APMs; and (3) actions CMS has taken to help these providers transition to APMs. GAO analyzed CMS data on participation in Advanced APMs for 2017 through 2019—the most recent years available at the time of GAO's analysis. GAO also interviewed officials from CMS and 18 stakeholder organizations that represent providers of various specialties that participate in APMs or that have conducted research and are knowledgeable of issues related to APMs. The Department of Health and Human Services provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Michelle B. Rosenberg at (202) 512-7114 or rosenbergm@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.