This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-958 
entitled 'Energy Employees Compensation: Many Claims Have Been 
Processed, but Action Is Needed to Expedite Processing of Claims 
Requiring Radiation Exposure Estimates' which was released on September 
10, 2004.

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.

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, 
and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives:

United States Government Accountability Office:

GAO:

September 2004:

Energy Employees Compensation:

Many Claims Have Been Processed, but Action Is Needed to Expedite 
Processing of Claims Requiring Radiation Exposure Estimates Many 
Claims:

GAO-04-958:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-958, a report to Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary, 
House of Representatives

Why GAO Did This Study:

Subtitle B of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
Program Act, administered by the Department of Labor (Labor), provides 
eligible workers who developed illnesses from their work, or their 
survivors, with a onetime total payment of $150,000, and coverage for 
medical expenses related to the illnesses. For some claims, Labor uses 
radiation exposure estimates (dose reconstructions) performed by the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), part of 
the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC), to determine if the illness claimed was 
“as least as likely as not” related to employment at a covered
facility.

GAO was asked to determine (1) how well Labor’s procedures and 
practices ensure the timely and consistent processing of claims that 
are not referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction but are being 
processed by Labor and (2) how well Labor’s and NIOSH’s procedures and 
practices ensure the timely and consistent processing of claims that 
are referred for dose reconstruction. GAO did not assess the quality of 
Labor’s claims decisions.

What GAO Found:

In the first 2½ years of the program—July 31, 2001, through January 31, 
2004—Labor had fully processed 83 percent of the nearly 30,000 claims 
that had not been referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction (see the 
fig. below); these claims correspond to nearly 23,000 cases for 
individual workers. (Multiple claims can be associated with a case as 
eligible survivors may each file claims.) Labor took an average of 7 
months to fully process these claims. About 42 percent of claims with 
final decisions were approved, resulting in $625 million in lump-sum 
compensation payments. The remaining 58 percent of claims with final 
decisions were denied—the majority because they did not meet medical or 
employment eligibility criteria. Labor generally met its timeliness 
goals for processing claims and is working to ensure that claims are 
processed consistently by conducting accountability reviews and 
creating a task force to update its procedure manual.

In the first 2½ years of the program, Labor and NIOSH had fully 
processed about 9 percent of the more than 21,000 claims (which 
correspond to about 15,000 cases) that were referred to NIOSH for dose 
reconstructions, taking an average of 17 months to fully process 
claims. Fifty-one percent of the processed claims were approved, and 
Labor has paid out about $65 million in lump-sum compensation. Forty-
nine percent were denied because it was determined that the claimed 
illness was not at least as likely as not related to employment at a 
covered facility. A backlog of claims needing dose reconstruction 
developed because NIOSH needed time to get the necessary staff and 
procedures in place to complete the dose reconstructions and develop 
site profiles. Efforts are under way to develop site profiles that 
contain facility-specific information that is useful in completing dose 
reconstructions. However, processing claims associated with facilities 
that do not have site profiles, in some instances, has essentially 
stopped, and NIOSH has not established a time frame for completing 
these remaining site profiles because of limited expert resources and 
site complexities. As a result, some claimants could wait a 
considerable period of time to have their claims fully processed. To 
help ensure the consistency of claim decisions, HHS’s Advisory Board 
is conducting an independent external evaluation of dose 
reconstruction decisions and site profiles.

Status of EEOICPA Subtitle B Claims as of January 31, 2004: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

What GAO Recommends:

HHS agreed with GAO’s recommendation that the agency direct CDC to 
establish time frames for completing the remaining site profiles. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-958.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Robert E. Robertson at 
(202) 512-7215 or robertsonr@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Labor Processes Claims Not Referred to NIOSH for Dose Reconstructions 
in a Timely Manner and Has Taken Steps to Ensure Consistency:

Claims Needing Dose Reconstructions Face Large Processing Backlog:

Conclusions:

Recommendation:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Labor's and NIOSH's Claim-Processing Steps:

Appendix III: Comparison of Claim-and Case-Level Information Regarding 
Claims Referred to NIOSH for Dose Reconstructions as of January 31, 
2004:

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Tables:

Table 1: Labor's Performance with Respect to Its GPRA Goals for 
Subtitle B, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003:

Table 2: Completed and Partially Completed Site Profiles as of June 
2004:

Table 3: Information on the Status of Claims Referred to NIOSH for Dose 
Reconstructions at the Claim and Case Levels as of January 31, 2004:

Figures:

Figure 1: Claims That Require Dose Reconstructions Are Processed 
Differently than Claims That Do Not:

Figure 2: Status of Claims Not Referred to NIOSH for Dose 
Reconstruction as of January 31, 2004:

Figure 3: Payments for Medical and Travel-Related Expenses Made for 
Approved Claims Not Referred to NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction as of 
January 31, 2004:

Figure 4: Status of Claims Referred to NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction as 
of January 31, 2004:

Figure 5: Payments for Medical and Travel-Related Expenses Made for 
Approved Claims Referred to NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction as of January 
31, 2004:

Abbreviations:

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

ECMS: Energy Case Management System:

EMBPS: Energy Medical Bill Processing Subsystem:

EEOICPA: Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 
Act:

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:

INEEL: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory:

NIOSH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health:

NOCTSNIOSH: Office of Compensation Analysis and Support Claims Tracking 
System:

OCAS: Office of Compensation Analysis and Support:

RECA: Radiation Exposure Compensation Act:

United States Government Accountability Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

September 10, 2004:

The Honorable John N. Hostettler: 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims:
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

For the last several decades, the Department of Energy (Energy) and its 
predecessor agencies and contractors have employed thousands of 
individuals in secret and dangerous work in the nuclear weapons 
production complex. Over the years, employees were unknowingly exposed 
to toxic substances, including radioactive and hazardous materials, and 
studies have shown that many of these employees subsequently developed 
serious illnesses.

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 
2000 (EEOICPA), enacted as Title XXXVI of Public Law 106-398 of the 
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2001, was signed into law on October 30, 2000. EEOICPA established two 
programs to help secure compensation for certain workers who developed 
occupational illnesses or for their survivors. The first program, 
established by Subtitle B, is administered by the Department of Labor 
(Labor). Under this program, eligible workers who were exposed to 
radiation or toxic substances and who subsequently developed specific 
kinds of cancers and other named conditions, or their survivors, 
receive a onetime total payment of $150,000. Living and eligible Energy 
employees also receive coverage for future medical expenses related to 
the illness. Compensation of $50,000 and payment of medical expenses 
from the date a claim is filed is also available for employees exposed 
to uranium previously awarded benefits by the Department of Justice 
under Section 5 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). The 
second program, established by Subtitle D, is administered by Energy. 
This program allows Energy to help its employees file state workers' 
compensation claims for illnesses determined by a panel of physicians 
to be caused by exposure during employment at an Energy facility.

Several different federal agencies are involved with the implementation 
of the Subtitle B program, including Labor, the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH), and Energy[Footnote 1]. Labor has primary 
responsibility for administering the program; Labor receives the claims 
and determines whether the claimant meets the eligibility requirements. 
Labor may receive multiple claims associated with a single worker, as 
multiple survivors may each file a claim. When considering the 
compensability of certain claims, Labor relies on estimations of the 
levels of radiation particular workers were likely exposed to when 
working for Energy; these estimations are known as "dose 
reconstructions" and are developed by NIOSH. To avoid gathering similar 
information for each claim associated with a particular facility, NIOSH 
compiles facility-specific information in "site profiles." These site 
profiles assist NIOSH in completing the dose reconstructions. Dose 
reconstructions are not needed for certain workers from four designated 
locations, who constitute the "special exposure cohort.[Footnote 2]" 
Certain workers from these sites were designated as members of the 
special exposure cohort in legislation because it was believed that 
exposure records were insufficient and the reasonable likelihood was 
that the workers' radiation exposure caused their cance[Footnote 3]rs. 
Finally, Energy provides employment and radiation records, where 
available, to Labor and NIOSH as appropriate.

While most of the concerns about EEOICPA have focused on Energy's 
implementation of Subtitle D,[Footnote 4] concerns have also been 
raised about Subtitle B claims, such as the length of time involved in 
completing dose reconstructions. Now that the program has been in place 
for a few years, you asked that we assess how well the program is 
working. We focused our work on two key areas: (1) how well Labor's 
procedures and practices ensure the timely and consistent processing of 
claims that are not referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction but are 
being processed by Labor and (2) how well Labor's and NIOSH's 
procedures and practices ensure the timely and consistent processing of 
claims that are referred for dose reconstructions.

To perform our review, we analyzed both Labor's and NIOSH's procedures 
and practices used to process claims. Specifically, we obtained and 
analyzed information on the goals used to assess timeliness and the 
quality assurance procedures. Also, we obtained information on NIOSH's 
efforts to complete site profiles needed to assist with the dose 
reconstruction process and on a recently introduced regulation for 
considering special exposure cohort petitions. We also interviewed 
officials from Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs and its 
four district offices as well as NIOSH's Office of Compensation 
Analysis and Support. In addition, we interviewed several NIOSH 
contracted staff, claimants, and EEOICPA experts regarding their 
knowledge of, or experiences with, Subtitle B claims processing. 
Further, we analyzed data extracted from Labor's and NIOSH's case 
management systems for claims filed from the beginning of the program-
-July 31, 2001--through January 31, 2004. We determined that the data 
we used were sufficiently reliable for our purposes by performing 
electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, 
reviewing available documentation, and interviewing agency officials 
and contractors knowledgeable about the data. Using these data, we 
determined the number of claims received, the status of the claims, the 
average time taken to process the claims, and the approval rates of the 
claims. We did not assess the quality of Labor's decisions. In 
addition, we interviewed Labor and NIOSH officials to obtain updated 
information on the approval rates for cases that required dose 
reconstructions as of July 2004. We also interviewed NIOSH officials to 
obtain information on the average time taken to draft dose 
reconstructions as of July 2004 and the number of dose reconstructions 
completed in the first 9 months of fiscal year 2004.

We conducted our review from October 2003 to September 2004 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. For a 
more complete explanation of our methodology, see appendix I.

Results in Brief:

In the first 2½ years of the program--July 31, 2001, through January 
31, 2004--Labor had fully processed 83 percent of the nearly 30,000 
claims that had not been referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. It 
took Labor an average of 7 months to fully process claims.[Footnote 5] 
About 42 percent of claims with final decisions were approved, 
resulting in $625 million in lump-sum compensation payments. The 
remaining 58 percent of the fully processed claims with final decisions 
were denied, in most instances because they did not meet medical or 
employment eligibility criteria. Labor has generally met its 
performance goals for timely claims processing. Moreover, Labor has 
taken steps to help ensure that claims are processed consistently. For 
example, Labor has conducted accountability reviews and worked with its 
district offices to address problems identified through these reviews, 
such as errors in how information was entered into the case management 
system. In addition, Labor has established a task force to update its 
procedure manual to provide a single source for claims-processing 
guidance.

Labor and NIOSH face a large backlog of claims that had been referred 
to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. In the first 2½ years of the program, 
the agencies had fully processed about 9 percent of the more than 
21,000 claims that require dose reconstructions, taking an average of 
17 months to fully process claims.[Footnote 6] Fifty-one percent of the 
fully processed claims with final decisions were approved, based on the 
results of approximately 500 dose reconstructions, and Labor paid out 
about $65 million in lump-sum compensation for these claims. Forty-nine 
percent were denied because the results of the dose reconstruction were 
used by Labor to determine that the claimed cancer did not meet the 
threshold of being "at least as likely as not" to have been caused by 
work-related exposure. However, more than 90 percent of claims referred 
to NIOSH for dose reconstruction, which involved about 14,000 
individual workers, remained in processing in the first 2½ years of the 
program. NIOSH officials report that the backlog arose because of 
several factors, including the time needed to get the necessary staff 
and procedures in place for performing dose reconstructions and to 
develop site profiles. As of June 2004, 11 site profiles were fully 
completed, 9 were partially completed, and the remaining 10 that NIOSH 
anticipates doing had not been started. NIOSH's progress in developing 
site profiles has helped accelerate the completion of dose 
reconstructions. Whereas the first 1,000 dose reconstructions took 
about 2 years to complete, the second 1,000 were completed in about 4 
months, and the third 1,000 were completed in 11 weeks. However, in 
some instances, NIOSH has essentially stopped processing claims 
associated with facilities for which it has not yet developed profiles 
and has not established a time frame for completing these remaining 
site profiles because of limited expert resources and site 
complexities. As a result, some claimants could wait a considerable 
period of time to have their claims fully processed. To help ensure the 
consistency of claims decisions, HHS's Advisory Board is conducting an 
independent external evaluation of dose reconstruction decisions and 
site profiles.

To enhance program management and promote greater transparency with 
regard to the timeliness of completing dose reconstructions, we 
recommend that the Secretary of HHS direct CDC officials to establish 
time frames for completing the remaining site profiles. In commenting 
on a draft of this report, HHS agreed with the recommendation to 
establish time frames for completing the remaining site profiles. HHS's 
comments are provided in appendix IV.

Background:

Several different federal agencies are involved with the implementation 
of EEOICPA's Subtitle B program, including Labor, CDC's NIOSH, and 
Energy. Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is responsible 
for adjudicating and administering claims filed by workers, former 
workers, or certain eligible survivors under the act. NIOSH, as part of 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within the Department of 
Health and Human Services, is responsible for performing several 
technical and policy-making roles in support of Labor's program, 
including:

* establishing by regulation methods for arriving at reasonable 
estimates of radiation doses received by an individual at a covered 
facility;

* establishing by regulation guidelines to be used by Labor to 
determine whether an individual sustained a cancer in the performance 
of duty for purposes of the compensation program if, and only if, the 
cancer was "at least as likely as not" related to the radiation dose 
received by the employee;[Footnote 7]

* establishing procedures for considering petitions to be added to the 
special exposure cohort; and:

* providing the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health with 
administrative and other necessary support services.

EEOICPA specified that the President appoint an Advisory Board to 
advise the Secretary, HHS, on its activities under the act. The 
Advisory Board, which is composed of scientists, physicians, and 
workers, advises the Secretary, HHS, on:

* the development of methods used to perform dose reconstructions and 
guidelines to be used to assess the likelihood that an employee's 
cancer is "at least as likely as not" related to work-related radiation 
exposure,

* the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts 
performed, and:

* the addition of employees to the special exposure cohort.

Energy is responsible for providing Labor and NIOSH information to 
assist with processing claims. This information includes such things as 
employment verification, information specifying the estimated 
radiation dose of that employee during each employment period claimed, 
and facilitywide monitoring data.

Several requirements must be met for a claimant to be eligible for 
compensation under Subtitle B.[Footnote 8] For a worker (or eligible 
survivor) to qualify for benefits, the worker must have worked at a 
covered Energy facility or at a beryllium vendor facility, or for an 
atomic weapons employer during a covered time period, and developed one 
of the specified illnesses associated with exposure to radiation, 
beryllium, or silica. Covered medical conditions include all cancers 
(except chronic lymphocytic leukemia), beryllium disease, and chronic 
silicosis.[Footnote 9]

When a claim is filed, it is assigned to one of Labor's four district 
offices--Jacksonville, Florida; Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; or 
Seattle, Washington--based on the geographical location of the covered 
worker's last employment. Upon receipt of a claim, Labor determines 
whether the Subtitle B claimant meets eligibility requirements for one 
of three claim types: RECA Section 5 supplement claims; beryllium, 
silicosis, and special exposure cohort cancer claims; and cancer claims 
not covered by special exposure cohort provisions.[Footnote 10] For the 
purposes of our report, we have grouped these three types of claims 
into two categories, based on whether or not the claims are referred to 
NIOSH for dose reconstruction during processing. As figure 1 shows, 
claims that are not referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction include 
RECA Section 5 supplement claims and beryllium, silicosis, and special 
exposure cohort cancer claims. Claims that are referred to NIOSH for 
dose reconstruction include cancer claims not covered by special 
exposure cohort provisions.

Figure 1: Claims That Require Dose Reconstructions Are Processed 
Differently than Claims That Do Not:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Depending on the type of claim, Labor must complete certain claims-
processing tasks before a decision can be made as to whether the 
claimant should receive compensation. Claims for the $50,000 RECA 
Section 5 supplement are the least complex. For these, Labor verifies 
with the Department of Justice that an award determination has 
previously been made and documents the identity of the claimant. For 
claims involving beryllium disease, silicosis, or a specified cancer 
for workers at a special exposure cohort facility, the employment and 
illness are verified.[Footnote 11] After the verification is completed 
for a claim, Labor develops a recommended decision that is issued to 
the claimant. The claimant may agree with the recommended decision or 
may object and request either a review of the written record or an oral 
hearing. In either case, the Final Adjudication Branch (a separate 
entity within Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs) will 
review the entire record, including the recommended decision and any 
evidence or testimony submitted by the claimant and will issue a final 
decision. A claimant can appeal the decision in the U.S. District 
Courts or have the case reopened if new evidence is provided to Labor.

Other claims are referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. Such claims 
include those involving a claimed cancer not covered by the special 
exposure cohort provisions.[Footnote 12] Before a determination of 
compensability can be made, a dose reconstruction must be conducted for 
the probability of causation to be established. In these instances, 
once Labor determines a worker was a covered employee and that he or 
she had a diagnosis of cancer, the case is referred to NIOSH. Using 
scientific and other collected information, NIOSH performs a dose 
reconstruction and provides the results to Labor. Labor uses these 
results to assess whether the employee's cancer was "at least as likely 
as not" related to the radiation dose received by the employee in order 
to determine compensability.

The purpose of a dose reconstruction is to characterize the extent to 
which workers were exposed to radiation present in the workplace and to 
assist Labor in determining the probability that a person's cancer was 
"at least as likely as not" caused by radiation. Dose reconstructions 
rely on information that was periodically collected to monitor 
radiation levels by Energy or other covered facilities and on 
information collected during interviews with the claimant. For example, 
when such information is available, NIOSH officials gather information 
that was collected to monitor a worker's radiation exposure, such as 
readings from a worker's monitoring badges, urinalysis results, and 
radon monitoring results. They also obtain information from 
workplacewide monitoring readings, such as general air-sampling 
results, radon monitoring results, and work-required medical screening 
x-rays. NIOSH officials also conduct interviews with claimants to 
obtain information on their employment history, how they were monitored 
for radiation exposure, whether they were aware of any particular 
incidents during which they may have been exposed to radiation, and 
whether medical screening had indicated they may have been exposed to 
radiation. In cases where NIOSH officials cannot fully characterize the 
likely level of radiation exposure, they estimate the level of exposure 
using reasonable scientific assumptions that give the claimant all the 
benefit of the doubt, according to NIOSH officials.

Compensation is limited to $150,000 per worker for all claims that are 
not related to RECA Section 5 supplements. When multiple survivors of 
the same worker file claims, the compensation amount is divided among 
eligible survivors. Moreover, while multiple claims associated with a 
single worker may be filed with Labor, only one dose reconstruction is 
needed in such instances. See appendix II for detailed information 
about the claim-processing steps used by Labor and NIOSH.

Labor Processes Claims Not Referred to NIOSH for Dose Reconstructions 
in a Timely Manner and Has Taken Steps to Ensure Consistency:

In the first 2½ years of the program--July 31, 2001, through January 
31, 2004--Labor had fully processed 83 percent of claims not referred 
to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. During the first year of the program, 
Labor was not able to meet one of its primary Government Performance 
and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) timeliness goals, but since then GPRA 
goals have been met and Labor has set higher goals for the 
future.[Footnote 13] Labor also established interim goals for 
processing claims. In addition, Labor has instituted various procedures 
to promote consistency, including conducting accountability reviews and 
updating its procedures manual.

Labor Has Fully Processed Most Claims Not Referred to NIOSH for Dose 
Reconstructions and Has Generally Met its Timeliness Goals for Claims 
Processing:

As of January 31, 2004, Labor had fully processed 83 percent of the 
nearly 30,000 claims for benefits under Subtitle B that had not been 
referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction.[Footnote 14] As shown in 
figure 2, an additional 16 percent of claims were in processing, and 
less than 1 percent had not yet begun processing.[Footnote 15] Of the 
claims that were fully processed, 94 percent had final decisions, and 
the remainder had been closed without a final determination for 
administrative reasons.[Footnote 16] Forty-two percent of claims with 
final decisions were approved, resulting in more than $625 million in 
lump-sum compensation payments. The remaining 58 percent were denied, 
in most instances because they did not meet medical or employment 
eligibility criteria. On average, it took about 7 months to fully 
process claims not needing dose reconstruction.

Figure 2: Status of Claims Not Referred to NIOSH for Dose 
Reconstruction as of January 31, 2004:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

As of January 31, 2004, the majority of approved claims that were not 
referred to NIOSH for dose reconstructions reported cancer as a claimed 
illness, and Labor had reimbursed claimants whose claims were approved 
nearly $22 million in medical and travel-related expenses. About 
55 percent of approved claims not referred for dose reconstruction 
claimed cancer, 12 percent reported chronic beryllium disease, 10 
percent reported beryllium sensitivity, and 4 percent reported chronic 
silicosis.[Footnote 17] Approved claimants with ongoing medical and 
travel-related expenses related to the occupational illness for which 
they were compensated under Subtitle B are entitled to reimbursement 
for these expenses.[Footnote 18] As shown in figure 3, more than half 
of the nearly $22 million paid was reimbursement for claimants' 
hospital expenses.

Figure 3: Payments for Medical and Travel-Related Expenses Made for 
Approved Claims Not Referred to NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction as of 
January 31, 2004:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Labor has generally met the two broad GPRA goals it established for 
timeliness of processing Subtitle B claims, as shown in table 1. These 
goals were (1) to complete the initial processing of claims within 
specified time periods, depending upon the type of claim, 75 percent of 
the time,[Footnote 19] and (2) to complete the final decision 
processing of claims within specified time periods 75 percent of the 
time.[Footnote 20] Labor did not establish different GPRA goals for 
claims not referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction versus those 
needing dose reconstruction; rather, the GPRA goals are overall goals 
that apply to Labor's processing of all Subtitle B claims. The initial 
processing time frames and the final decision processing time frames 
encompass all of the activities Labor must complete to fully process a 
claim. In its fiscal year 2002 annual report, Labor stated that it set 
these GPRA goals to provide a clear indication to claimants that their 
claims would be processed efficiently. The report further stated that 
the agency wanted to send a strong message to the new program's staff 
that they should share this strong commitment in processing claims. In 
its 2003 strategic plan, Labor indicated that it planned to set higher 
processing goals through 2008 by increasing the goals by 2 percentage 
points each year.

Labor officials cited several factors that contributed to not meeting 
the GPRA goal for initial processing in fiscal year 2002. For example, 
in the program's first year, the district offices received more than 
34,000 claims and actually had a backlog of claims to process even 
before they began operating the program on July 31, 2001. In addition, 
several start-up problems, most notably unanticipated delays in 
obtaining the employment information from Energy necessary to proceed 
with initial claims processing, also prevented Labor from achieving 
this goal during the first year, according to Labor officials. Labor 
officials also stated that they have addressed many of these initial 
problems and Energy has greatly improved its responsiveness rate. Labor 
officials report that Energy is typically responding to a request 
within 30 days, which exceeds Labor's goal of obtaining a response from 
Energy within 60 days. Labor officials have also used other sources, 
such as labor unions, to help provide necessary employment 
verification.

Table 1: Labor's Performance with Respect to Its GPRA Goals for 
Subtitle B, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003:

Labor's GPRA goals: Complete the initial processing of claims within 
various specified time periods; 
Completion rate goals for both FY 2002 and FY2003: 75% of the time; 
Actual completion rate for FY 2002: 48% of the time; 
Actual completion rate for FY 2003: 79% of the time.

Labor's GPRA goals: Complete the final decision processing of claims 
within various specified time periods; 
Completion rate goals for both FY 2002 and FY2003: 75% of the time; 
Actual completion rate for FY 2002: 76% of the time; 
Actual completion rate for FY 2003: 76% of the time.

Source: GAO analysis of Labor documents.

Note: Shaded cells represent goals that were achieved.

[End of table]

To assist Labor officials in knowing how well claims are being 
processed, and ultimately meeting its GPRA goals, Labor has also 
established a number of interim processing goals. These interim 
processing goals specify time frames for completing activities such as 
initiating the employment and illness verification process and issuing 
the lump-sum payments. Initially, the district offices had difficulty 
meeting some of these interim goals. However, over time they have been 
better able to meet these goals. For example, in fiscal year 2002, 
Labor set an interim goal to initiate the employment and illness 
verification process within 25 days 90 percent of the time. While the 
district offices achieved only a 76 percent rate in fiscal year 2002, 
they improved their rate to over 98 percent in fiscal year 2003. 
Similarly, in fiscal year 2002, an interim goal was set to issue a 
lump-sum payment to a claimant within 15 days of approving a claim 90 
percent of the time. District offices achieved a 77 percent rate in 
fiscal year 2002 but improved their performance to achieve a 93 percent 
rate in fiscal year 2003.

Labor Has Taken Steps to Ensure Consistency, Including Accountability 
Reviews and a Major Update of its Procedures Manual:

Labor has taken several steps to help ensure that Subtitle B claims are 
processed consistently. For example, Labor requires that claim 
decisions undergo several levels of review. After a claims examiner 
develops a recommended decision, a senior claims examiner reviews that 
recommended decision, and a claims manager, who reviews a sample of 
such decisions, might review it as well. Labor's Final Adjudication 
Branch then reviews the recommended decision before making a final 
decision and awarding compensation, if appropriate. If during any of 
these reviews the reviewer determines that there was not enough 
information to make a decision, the case is sent back to the claims 
examiner for further development.

To further promote consistency, Labor performs accountability reviews 
each year on the EEOICPA program as it does with its other similar 
compensation programs. In completing the reviews, Labor samples claims 
in each of its four district offices as well as its Final Adjudication 
Branch offices. The purpose of the reviews is to assess the quality of 
work being performed in each office and to guide managers in developing 
training and implementing any needed corrective actions. The reviews 
focus on such tasks as processing claims in a timely manner, making 
payments appropriately, assigning staff to appropriate roles, and 
coding claims appropriately in the case management system. The 
accountability reviews have proven very useful in identifying training 
needs, according to Labor officials. For example, after an 
accountability review showed that actions had been taken in some claims 
but were not reflected through status codes in the case management 
system, some district offices held training courses to help their 
claims examining staff better understand how to use codes properly. In 
addition to providing training, the district offices are required to 
correct any problems identified during the reviews. Labor officials 
told us they expect to continue to conduct accountability reviews each 
year.

Labor has also taken steps to improve staff access to updates in 
claims-processing procedures. Some district offices raised concerns 
that the procedures manual, originally issued in January 2002, did not 
always reflect Labor's most recent guidance and needed to be revised. 
For example, a supervisor in one of the district offices said that the 
bulletins announcing changes to the system are not available from a 
central source and that he has struggled at times to determine the 
proper procedure. According to Labor officials, because the program is 
relatively new and the law was vague in some areas, Labor has issued 
many different policies to define how staff should handle different 
situations. In addition, guidance was not always centrally located 
because, in issuing policy clarifications, Labor did not consistently 
use one format; rather, it issued policies in bulletins, e-mails, and 
documentation of telephone calls. To address the district offices' 
concerns, Labor created a task force composed of 10 team members, 
including staff from the four district offices and headquarters. The 
task force is working to develop a comprehensive procedures manual that 
would include all the bulletins, teleconference calls, and other 
communications containing policy changes that have been issued since 
the beginning of the program. Officials said that they are in the final 
stages of completing the manual.

Claims Needing Dose Reconstructions Face Large Processing Backlog:

In the first 2½ years of the program--July 31, 2001, through January 
31, 2004--Labor and NIOSH fully processed about 9 percent of the claims 
referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction, leaving a large backlog of 
these claims. NIOSH officials report that the backlog resulted because 
time was needed to develop the necessary regulations and get staff and 
procedures in place for performing dose reconstructions. NIOSH now has 
its staff and procedures in place and has an extensive effort under way 
to complete site profiles that expedite the dose reconstruction 
process. However, NIOSH's time frame for completing the remaining 
profiles is uncertain, and as a result, some claims associated with 
facilities that do not have site profiles may take a considerable 
period of time to be fully processed. To ensure the consistency of 
claim decisions, NIOSH's Advisory Board is overseeing an effort to 
evaluate dose reconstruction decisions and site profiles. Finally, with 
the recent issuance of special exposure cohort regulations, the backlog 
of claims needing dose reconstructions may be reduced if additions are 
made to the special exposure cohort, thereby eliminating the need for 
performing dose reconstructions on these claims.

Relatively Few Claims Needing Dose Reconstructions Have Been Fully 
Processed, and NIOSH Cites a Number of Factors Affecting Its Ability to 
Complete Dose Reconstructions:

As of January 31, 2004, Labor, using dose reconstructions provided by 
NIOSH, had fully processed relatively few of the claims referred to 
NIOSH for dose reconstruction. Of the more than 21,000 claims requiring 
dose reconstruction, 9 percent were fully processed, 91 percent were in 
processing, and less than 1 percent had not yet begun processing, as 
shown in figure 4.[Footnote 21] Of the 9 percent that had been fully 
processed, 64 percent had final decisions, while the remaining claims 
were closed for administrative reasons.[Footnote 22] Our analysis 
showed that dose reconstructions had been started for about one-third 
of the claims that were in processing. The remaining claims were either 
waiting or undergoing development prior to the initiation of the dose 
reconstruction.[Footnote 23] In some cases where a site profile has not 
yet been developed, these claims are essentially on hold until the site 
profile is developed.

Figure 4: Status of Claims Referred to NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction as 
of January 31, 2004:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Fifty-one percent of claims with final decisions as of January 31, 
2004, were approved, resulting in $65 million in lump-sum compensation 
payments.[Footnote 24] Forty-nine percent were denied because the 
results of the dose reconstruction were used by Labor to determine that 
the claimed illness was not "at least as likely as not" to have been 
caused by work-related radiation exposure.[Footnote 25] However, 
approval rates for cases with final decisions have subsequently 
decreased, and as of July 2004, Labor officials reported that the 
approval rate for cases that required dose reconstruction was about 30 
percent.

Claims referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction have taken longer to 
fully process than those that do not require dose reconstruction, and 
some claims in processing at NIOSH may face a long wait for dose 
reconstruction before returning to Labor for decisions. Of the Subtitle 
B claims that were fully processed, as of January 31, 2004, those that 
required dose reconstruction took an average of about 17 months to 
fully process, compared with about 7 months for claims that did not 
require dose reconstruction. However, the claims requiring dose 
reconstruction that had not yet been fully processed had already been 
pending for an average of 19 months. Approximately 15 of these months, 
on average, had been spent in processing at NIOSH and 4 months had been 
spent in processing at Labor.

All approved claims that had required dose reconstruction reported 
cancer, and Labor reimbursed claimants for more than $3 million in 
medical and travel-related expenses as of January 31, 2004. Almost all 
of the reimbursements were for hospital and physician expenses, as 
shown in figure 5.

Figure 5: Payments for Medical and Travel-Related Expenses Made for 
Approved Claims Referred to NIOSH for Dose Reconstruction as of January 
31, 2004:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Unlike Labor, which was able to immediately begin processing claims at 
the start of the program on July 31, 2001, NIOSH needed time to develop 
the necessary regulations and to get staff and procedures in place to 
perform dose reconstructions. Two necessary regulations were finalized 
in May 2002.[Footnote 26] In a May 2004 report to Congress,[Footnote 
27] NIOSH reported that many of the key program pieces, such as 
recruiting and training staff, were not completed until 2003, 
contributing to the delays in its ability to complete dose 
reconstructions. NIOSH also highlighted the difficulties it has 
encountered in collecting information from Labor, Energy and other 
employers, and claimants. For instance, NIOSH reported that information 
such as employment history and cancer diagnosis provided by Labor is, 
at times, inaccurate or incomplete. NIOSH also reported that obtaining 
information from Energy or other employers has been difficult because 
individual exposure records cannot always be located. Finally, while 
the intent of conducting an interview with the claimant is to obtain 
useful information, NIOSH officials report, however, that this will not 
hinder a dose reconstruction.

NIOSH has been working to improve its ability to develop dose 
reconstructions and address its backlog of claims needing dose 
reconstruction. In March 2004, the Director of NIOSH testified that 
NIOSH has steadily increased its capacity to complete dose 
reconstructions and that much of the program's development is 
complete.[Footnote 28] NIOSH officials stated that they continue to 
work with Labor staff to establish a better understanding of what 
information, such as ethnicity and smoking history, is needed by NIOSH 
to perform a dose reconstruction, and officials stated that Labor is 
now typically providing this information. In addition, NIOSH has worked 
with Energy facilities to provide requested information in a more 
timely fashion. Improvements have been made in this area, and officials 
report that Energy generally provides the information within NIOSH's 
time frame of 60 days. While NIOSH officials are working with claimants 
to better educate them about the information NIOSH wants to collect 
during the interview, NIOSH officials said that it was important to 
realize that these interviews are voluntary and are not the sole source 
of information. Information provided during the interviews is helpful, 
but a dose reconstruction is not dependent upon an interview being 
conducted, according to NIOSH officials.

While NIOSH reports that it has improved its ability to complete dose 
reconstructions, it has not established any performance goal for the 
overall timeliness of processing the claims referred to NIOSH for dose 
reconstruction. Specifically, no GPRA goals were established in fiscal 
year 2002 or 2003 for NIOSH's processing of Subtitle B cases, but a 
GPRA goal, covering part of the dose reconstruction process, was 
established for fiscal year 2004. Despite not having GPRA goals earlier 
in the program, NIOSH did establish and track some interim processing 
goals.[Footnote 29] NIOSH did not want to establish any overall 
timeliness goal for completing dose reconstructions, but rather wanted 
staff to complete them in as scientifically sound and efficient a 
manner as possible. NIOSH's GPRA goal for fiscal year 2004 is to have 
draft dose reconstructions sent to 80 percent of all claimants within 
60 calendar days of the claim being assigned to staff to perform a dose 
reconstruction. As of July 2004, NIOSH officials reported that 
currently, an average of 70 days was required to conduct a dose 
reconstruction after a case was assigned to a dose reconstructionist. 
While NIOSH has developed innovative solutions to process claims from 
more than 70 different sites regardless of whether a site profile 
exists, the majority of these claims typically involve facilities that 
do have a site profile either completed or partially completed. 
However, since claims associated with facilities that do not have site 
profiles are typically not assigned to staff for dose reconstruction, 
it is possible that NIOSH could meet the GPRA goal and that some 
claimants could still wait a considerable period of time to have their 
cases fully processed.

NIOSH has accelerated the rate at which it is completing dose 
reconstruction. For example, it took NIOSH a little more than 2 years 
from when it received its first referral from Labor to complete the 
first 1,000 dose reconstructions. In contrast, NIOSH completed the 
second 1,000 dose reconstructions in less than 4 months and the third 
1,000 dose reconstructions in 11 weeks. NIOSH established a target of 
completing 8,000 dose reconstructions in fiscal year 2004. To assist in 
meeting this goal, NIOSH is aiming to complete 200 dose reconstructions 
per week. As of June 2004, NIOSH was averaging about 150 dose 
reconstructions a week and had completed about 2,100 dose 
reconstructions in the first 9 months of fiscal year 2004.

Completed Site Profiles Have Helped Accelerate Claims Processing, but 
NIOSH Has Not Established Time Frames for Completing the Remaining 
Profiles:

To facilitate the dose reconstruction process, NIOSH is developing site 
profiles that compile information such as hazardous materials present 
at the site, facilitywide monitoring information, and information on 
workers at the site who may have been exposed to radiation. NIOSH 
officials believe that these site profiles will enhance the efficiency 
of performing dose reconstructions by eliminating the need to duplicate 
efforts in gathering information. The site profiles for larger sites 
consist of six documents, which are called Technical Basis Documents: 
an introduction, a site description, an occupational medical dose 
document, an occupational environmental dose document, an occupational 
internal dose document, and an occupational external dose-monitoring 
document. NIOSH officials are also compiling worker profiles, which 
provide information on the worker' job, work location within the 
facility, and time periods worked. NIOSH sometimes uses the worker 
profiles to obtain proxy information when some information is not 
available for a particular claimant.

NIOSH initially expected to conduct dose reconstructions while 
developing site profiles for the facilities involved but encountered 
difficulties in doing so. By pursuing both efforts at the same time, 
NIOSH officials had hoped to avoid facing a backlog of claims by 
completing a substantial number of dose reconstructions. However, NIOSH 
determined that it was necessary to first complete the site profiles to 
complete a high volume of dose reconstructions because it was too 
inefficient to collect general site-related information on a case-by-
case basis. In addition, while Energy has supported NIOSH's efforts in 
locating site-specific information, there have been some delays in 
providing this information, particularly when the information requested 
is from classified documents. When requests for classified documents 
are made, delays have occurred because of the time needed for Energy to 
comply with procedures for ensuring national security.

NIOSH currently has an extensive effort under way to develop site 
profiles, and this effort has helped expedite the processing of claims. 
NIOSH has established over a dozen teams, each composed of three to six 
experts, and made each team responsible for developing a different site 
profile. NIOSH prioritized its efforts by targeting those facilities 
that have the largest number of claims needing dose reconstruction; 15 
of the 30 sites NIOSH anticipates completing a site profile for 
represent about 80 percent of the claims submitted for dose 
reconstruction. As of June 2004, 11 site profiles were fully completed, 
while 9 other site profiles were partially completed (see table 2).

Table 2: Completed and Partially Completed Site Profiles as of June 
2004:

Completed site profiles: 
* Bethlehem Steel, New York; 
* Blockson Chemical Company, Illinois; 
* Fernald Environmental Management Project, Ohio; 
* Hanford, Washington; 
* Huntington Pilot Plant, West Virginia; 
* Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Iowa; 
* Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, Missouri; 
* Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado; 
* Savannah River Site, South Carolina; 
* Tennessee Valley Authority Muscle Shoals Site, Alabama; 
* Y-12 National Security Complex, Tennessee; 

Partially completed site profiles: 
* Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho; 
* Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico; 
* Mound Site, Ohio; 
* Nevada Test Site, Nevada; 
* Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (K-25), Tennessee; 
* Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL or X-10), Tennessee; 
* Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Kentucky; 
* Pantex Plant, Texas; 
* Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio. 

Source: NIOSH.

[End of table]

In cases where a site profile has been completed, NIOSH has been able 
to better process the claims needing dose reconstruction associated 
with those facilities. For instance, since the first of six Technical 
Basis Documents for the Savannah River site profile was approved, in 
July 2003, NIOSH had completed about 500 dose reconstructions for that 
site by January 31, 2004, whereas NIOSH had completed fewer than 10 
dose reconstructions for that site prior to July 2003. While some site 
profiles are only partially completed, NIOSH is still able to use the 
completed Technical Basis documents, as applicable, to develop dose 
reconstructions. For example, at the Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the occupational internal dose 
document is still being finalized. However, if NIOSH has a claim that 
only needs the use of other INEEL site profile documents that are 
finalized, such as the occupational medical dose document or the 
occupational external dosimetry documents, a dose reconstruction can be 
developed for this claim. In addition, completed site profiles may be 
modified as additional relevant information is identified and 
incorporated. Claims originally denied based upon a prior version of a 
site profile are re-examined to determine the effect that the new 
information may have on the compensability of the claim. In turn, Labor 
can make any appropriate modifications to its earlier claim decisions.

Despite efforts to complete the remaining site profiles, NIOSH 
officials said that their time frame for completing these profiles is 
uncertain. The site profiles that have been completed have taken on 
average 4 to 6 months to complete. NIOSH reported that the pace at 
which it can complete additional site profiles is constrained by the 
limited expert resources available to conduct this specialized work and 
by the complexity of the history and variety of operations at 
particular sites. In addition, NIOSH officials said that it generally 
takes longer to complete site profiles for atomic weapons employer 
sites because many of these sites are no longer operating or are 
privately owned, making it difficult to locate records. Because the 
number of available staff needed to complete site profiles is very 
limited, NIOSH officials stated that they have had to balance their use 
of these resources. As site profiles are completed, resources are 
reallocated to assist with the completion of additional site profiles.

HHS's Advisory Board Is Conducting an Evaluation to Ensure Claims 
Decisions Are Consistent:

HHS's Advisory Board has a major effort under way to ensure claims 
decisions are being made consistently. Specifically, HHS's Advisory 
Board is responsible under the statute for (1) reviewing a reasonable 
sample of individual dose reconstructions for scientific validity and 
quality, (2) advising on the development of guidelines to determine 
probability of causation and methods for dose reconstruction, and (3) 
reviewing special exposure cohort petitions. To assist the Advisory 
Board, HHS entered into a contract with an organization in October 2003 
to carry out some of these tasks. The contractor is currently 
developing its plans for completing these tasks and expects to conduct 
the evaluation over the next 5 years and to provide interim status 
reports each year.[Footnote 30]

Performing an independent review to examine the consistency of 
individual dose reconstructions decisions is an important aspect of 
effective program management for the Subtitle B program. In the past, 
GAO reported concerns that a similar program that compensates veterans 
with diseases caused by radiation exposure did not have an independent 
review of its dose reconstructions.[Footnote 31] Such a review could 
result in greater public confidence and mitigate concerns about dose 
reconstructions. NIOSH officials have also stated that the evaluation 
of the individual dose reconstructions and site profiles is an 
important exercise to complete. The Chair of the Advisory Board said 
that while the board is confident in what NIOSH's findings have been to 
date, it is important to have an independent review completed in order 
to validate these findings.

HHS Issued Regulations That Would Eliminate the Need for Dose 
Reconstructions for Claims Granted Special Exposure Cohort Status:

After HHS had twice received public comments on proposed regulations 
concerning how individuals or groups could apply for special exposure 
cohort status, the agency issued final regulations on May 28, 
2004.[Footnote 32] The Secretary of HHS is responsible for developing 
procedures for considering petitions to be added to the special 
exposure cohort. HHS originally published a proposal for these 
procedures on June 25, 2002, and subsequently received a number of 
public comments. Many of these comments pertained to the feasibility of 
completing dose reconstructions and establishing time limits for 
completing dose reconstructions. Because HHS needed to make substantial 
changes to the procedures to address public comments, the agency issued 
a second notice of proposed rule making on March 7, 2003, and solicited 
public comments through May 6, 2003. Again many of the comments related 
to completing dose reconstructions in a feasible and timely manner.

HHS's regulations establish procedures that describe how petitions can 
be submitted and reviewed for special exposure cohort consideration. 
These requirements are intended to ensure that petitions are submitted 
by authorized parties, are justified, and receive uniform, fair, and 
scientific consideration. The procedures are also designed to give 
petitioners and interested parties opportunities for appropriate 
involvement in the process. The procedures are not intended to provide 
a second opportunity to qualify a claim for compensation, once NIOSH 
has completed a dose reconstruction and Labor has determined that the 
claimed cancer was not "at least as likely as not" to have been caused 
by the estimated radiation doses.[Footnote 33]

With the implementation of the regulations, some of the claims in 
NIOSH's backlog could be eligible for special exposure cohort status 
and consequently reduce the backlog of claims requiring dose 
reconstruction. If a petition to add a particular group to the special 
exposure cohort is submitted and approved, NIOSH would not need to 
develop an individual dose reconstruction for such a claim. Rather, 
Labor would verify the claimant's employment and illness and follow the 
review process currently used for existing special exposure cohort 
groups. As of July 30, 2004, NIOSH had received eight special exposure 
cohort petitions and was determining whether the petitions were 
eligible for consideration.

Conclusions:

Labor's procedures and practices have helped the agency to fully 
process most of the claims that had not been referred to NIOSH for dose 
reconstruction. Because this program is relatively new, Labor has 
issued many different policies to define how staff should handle 
different situations and is working to develop a comprehensive 
procedures manual that would contain these policies. In addition, the 
accountability reviews performed each year have allowed Labor to 
identify and correct problems as they occur and provide additional 
training to staff as needed. To ensure consistency in the processing of 
claims during this period of change, it will continue to be important 
for Labor to maintain these ongoing efforts.

In contrast, relatively few claims requiring dose reconstructions have 
been fully processed. NIOSH faces the challenge of balancing multiple 
objectives--scientific soundness and timeliness--in completing dose 
reconstructions. However, while NIOSH has placed considerable focus on 
ensuring scientific soundness, it has not established a clear vision 
for claimants or the Congress with regard to the time frames within 
which they can expect dose reconstructions to be completed. NIOSH 
established a GPRA goal for fiscal year 2004 that specifies a time 
frame for completing draft dose reconstructions once a claim is 
assigned to staff to perform a dose reconstruction. However, claims 
associated with facilities that do not have site profiles are typically 
not assigned to staff for dose reconstruction, and this waiting period 
is not reflected in the GPRA goal. NIOSH learned from its initial 
implementation experience that completing site profiles is a critical 
element for efficiently processing claims requiring dose 
reconstruction. While NIOSH had completed 11 site profiles and 
partially completed 9 profiles as of June 2004, it had not established 
any time frames for completing these 9 site profiles or the remaining 
10 site profiles that it expects to develop. Without such time frames, 
claimants do not have a good understanding of when their dose 
reconstruction might be completed. While it is important to avoid the 
extreme of establishing time frames that are unreasonable and would set 
up NIOSH for failure, it is equally important to avoid the other 
extreme of not setting any expectations for the timely completion of 
dose reconstructions for which site profiles have not been completed. 
Moreover, now that NIOSH has more experience in developing site 
profiles, it is in a better position to identify and take account of 
factors that can lead to differences in the amount of time required to 
complete site profiles for different facilities.

Recommendation:

To enhance program management and promote greater transparency with 
regard to the timeliness of completing dose reconstructions, we 
recommend that the Secretary of HHS direct CDC officials to establish 
time frames for completing the remaining site profiles.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided a draft of this report to both Labor and HHS for comment. 
Labor did not have any comments on the report. HHS said that the report 
was balanced, thorough, and constructive, and that it agreed with GAO's 
recommendation to establish time frames for completing the remaining 
site profiles. HHS also provided updated information on the number of 
site profiles already completed and the total number of site profiles 
that it anticipates compiling, and we revised the report to incorporate 
this information. HHS added that it has used innovative solutions to 
complete dose reconstructions in some instances in which site profiles 
do not exist and we modified the report to incorporate this 
information. Moreover, HHS provided additional information to explain 
how completed site profiles function as "living documents" and are 
modified as additional relevant information is identified. Finally, HHS 
raised questions about the accuracy of certain statistics we cited 
about cases that had been fully processed by Labor, while acknowledging 
that Labor is a more authoritative source on this topic. We believe 
that these statistics accurately describe what they were intended to 
measure, and Labor did not raise any issue about their accuracy; hence, 
we did not revise the figures. HHS's comments are provided in appendix 
IV. HHS also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as 
appropriate.

Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretary of Labor and the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, appropriate congressional 
committees, and other interested parties. The report will able be made 
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you 
have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-
7215. Other contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix 
VI.

Sincerely yours,

Signed by: 

Robert E. Robertson: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

To determine how well the Department of Labor's (Labor) procedures and 
practices ensure the timely and consistent processing of claims that 
are not referred to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and 
Health (NIOSH) for dose reconstruction but are being processed by 
Labor, we reviewed Labor's regulations, procedures, and practices 
related to processing claims. In addition, we interviewed officials 
from Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs and its four 
district offices in Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Jacksonville, 
Florida; and Seattle, Washington to discuss their procedures and 
practices. In addition, we obtained and analyzed information on Labor's 
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals and interim 
processing goals for fiscal year 2002 through the second quarter of 
fiscal year 2004. We also obtained and analyzed accountability review 
documents for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. We interviewed Labor 
officials to obtain information on the department's efforts to revise 
its procedures manual used by staff in processing claims. Last, for 
background purposes, we interviewed several claimants and Energy 
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICPA) experts 
regarding their knowledge of or experiences with Subtitle B claims 
processing.

To determine how well Labor's and the NIOSH procedures and practices 
ensure the timely and consistent processing of claims that are referred 
to NIOSH for dose reconstruction, we reviewed Labor's and NIOSH's 
regulations, procedures, and practices related to processing claims. 
Along with the work we performed at Labor as described earlier, we 
interviewed officials from NIOSH's Office of Compensation Analysis and 
Support (OCAS) to discuss their procedures and practices. In addition, 
we obtained and analyzed information on NIOSH's GPRA goals and interim 
processing goals for fiscal year 2002 through the second quarter of 
fiscal year 2004. We also reviewed several of the completed site 
profiles and obtained information on NIOSH's time frames for completing 
additional site profiles needed to assist with the dose reconstruction 
process. We reviewed recently introduced regulations for considering 
petitions to be added to the special exposure cohort as well as 
different pieces of legislation introduced that would establish 
additional sites as special exposure cohort sites. We also interviewed 
the Advisory Board chair and reviewed key documents pertaining to the 
evaluation of dose reconstructions that the Advisory Board is 
overseeing. Last, for background purposes, we interviewed several NIOSH 
contract staff, claimants, and EEOICPA experts regarding their 
knowledge of or experiences with Subtitle B claims processing.

To determine the number, status, and other characteristics of Subtitle 
B claims filed through January 31, 2004, we analyzed administrative 
data extracted from Labor's and NIOSH's case management systems for 
applications filed from the beginning of the program--July 31, 2001--
through January 31, 2004. Neither agency publishes standardized data 
extracts from their systems, so we requested that they provide 
customized extracts for our analysis. Specifically, we received an 
extract from the NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 
Claims Tracking System (NOCTS) and several files extracted from Labor's 
Energy Cases Management System (ECMS) and Energy Medical Bill 
Processing Subsystem (EMBPS).

Because multiple claims can be associated with a single worker, the 
systems and the extracts received from both agencies contain data 
collected at two levels--the case level and the claim level. For 
example, if multiple children of a deceased worker file claims, all 
claims will be associated with a single case, which is linked to the 
worker. At the case level, the extracts contained information about the 
worker, such as date of birth and date of death (if applicable), the 
facilities at which the employee worked, the employee's dates of 
employment, and the status of the case as it moves through the 
development process. At the claim level, the extracts contained 
information related to the individual claimants, such as the date the 
claim was signed, the claimant's relationship to the worker, and the 
status of the claim as it progressed through processing.

The Labor files were merged to produce claim-and case-level data files 
and were subsequently merged with the NIOSH extract. Throughout this 
report, we have reported our statistics at the claim level. Where case-
level statistics have been reported, they have been merged with the 
claim-level data so that they could be reported at the claim level.

We interviewed key Labor and NIOSH officials and contractors and 
reviewed available system documentation, such as design specifications 
and system update documents. We tested the data sets to determine that 
they were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Specifically, we 
performed electronic testing to identify missing data or logical 
inconsistencies. We did not assess the quality of Labor's claims 
decisions. We then computed descriptive statistics, including 
frequencies and cross-tabulations, to determine the number and status 
of claims received as of January 31, 2004.

In order to provide more current information, we interviewed Labor and 
NIOSH officials to obtain updated information on the approval rates for 
cases that required dose reconstructions as of July 2004. We also 
interviewed NIOSH officials to obtain information on the average time 
taken to draft dose reconstructions as of July 2004 and the number of 
dose reconstructions completed in the first 9 months of fiscal year 
2004.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Labor's and NIOSH's Claim-Processing Steps:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comparison of Claim-and Case-Level Information Regarding 
Claims Referred to NIOSH for Dose Reconstructions as of January 31, 
2004:

While Labor makes and reports its decisions on the claim level, NIOSH 
reports its dose reconstruction results on the case level because only 
one dose reconstruction is completed for each worker regardless of the 
number of claims filed by survivors. Table 3 presents information on 
the status of claims referred to NIOSH for dose reconstructions at both 
the claim and case levels as of January 31, 2004.

Table 3: Information on the Status of Claims Referred to NIOSH for Dose 
Reconstructions at the Claim and Case Levels as of January 31, 2004:

Status: Fully processed; 
Claims: 1,900; 
Cases: 1,600.

Status: In processing; 
Claims: 19,000; 
Cases: 14,000.

Status: Not yet processed; 
Claims: Fewer than 50; 
Cases: Fewer than 50.

Total; 
Claims: More than 21,000; 
Cases: More than 15,000.

Source: GAO's analysis of Labor's data.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:	
Office of Inspector General:

Washington, D.C. 20201:

AUG 31 2004:

Mr. Robert E. Robertson: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Robertson:

Enclosed are the Department's comments on your draft report entitled, 
"Energy Employees Compensation-Many Claims Have Been Processed, But 
Action Is Needed to Expedite Processing of Claims Requiring Radiation 
Exposure Estimates" (GAO-04-958). The comments represent the tentative 
position of the Department and are subject to reevaluation when the 
final version of this report is received.

The Department provided several technical comments directly to your 
staff.

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft 
report before its publication. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Lewis Morris:

Chief Counsel to the Inspector General:

Enclosure:

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's 
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's 
designated focal point and coordinator for Government Accountability 
Office reports. OIG has not conducted an independent assessment of 
these comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them.

COMMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) ON THE 
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S (GAG'S) DRAFT REPORT "ENERGY 
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION: MANY CLAIMS HAVE BEEN PROCESSED, BUT ACTION IS 
NEEDED TO EXPEDITE PROCESSING OF CLAIMS REQUIRING RADIATION EXPOSURE 
ESTIMATES" (GAO-04-958):

HHS appreciates the opportunity to review GAO's draft report on this 
important program. HHS welcomes independent assessments as a way to 
improve performance, and believes that the review is balanced, 
thorough, and constructive. Following are HHS comments regarding the 
draft report.

GAO Recommendation:

To enhance program management and promote greater transparency with 
regard to the timeliness of completing dose reconstructions, we 
recommend that the Secretary of HHS direct NIOSH to establish 
timeframes for completing the remaining site profiles.

HHS Comments:

Throughout the document (including pages 4, 24, 25 [Table 2]), HHS's 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), is referred to as having 
fully completed 7 site profiles and having partially completed 13 as of 
June 2004. To be accurate, all such references and the information 
contained in Table 2 on page 25 should identify 11 fully complete and 9 
partially complete profiles. Four of the profiles labeled partially 
complete in the draft report should be labeled as fully complete. These 
are Bethlehem Steel, Huntington Pilot Plant, Blockson Chemical, and 
Tennessee Valley Authority. These four Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) 
profiles may have been mislabeled, assuming that these profiles needed 
six chapters (similar to Department of Energy [DOE] weapons complex 
sites) to be complete. AWE sites do not necessarily require the six 
Technical Basis Document (TBD) chapters that are found in the completed 
DOE weapons complex Site Profiles (SP).

In addition, it is important to note that SP and TBD, which are deemed 
"complete," are ready for use in dose reconstruction for claims where 
the information contained in these documents allows for estimating 
radiation doses with sufficient accuracy to yield a decision from the 
Department of Labor (DOL) for a given claim. Furthermore, these SP and 
TBD "living documents" which mean that they are modified as additional 
relevant information is identified and incorporated. Any non-
compensable claim processed under a prior version of a SP is re-
examined against the new information to determine the effect that new 
information may have on the compensability of the claim as required by 
42 CFR 82.27(b).

In various passages, the draft report indicates that NIOSH is "planning 
to complete the remaining 40 site profiles." NIOSH does not have plans 
for, nor does it envision the need for, these site profiles. During an 
interview with GAO staff, NIOSH officials indicated that they would 
most likely develop site profiles only for sites where there are more 
than 40 cases. NIOSH officials further indicated that this strategy was 
designed to effectively utilize resources, and they explained that many 
AWE sites with similar production process and exposure scenarios would 
use an already completed TBD. If the cut point is 40 cases, NIOSH will 
have a total of 30 site profiles. NIOSH understands and accepts the GAO 
recommendation that a timetable needs to be established for the 
unfinished site profiles. NIOSH will aggressively pursue the completion 
of all SP and TBD necessary to provide scientifically sound dose 
estimates that are fair to the claimant.

The draft report indicates that NIOSH has "essentially stopped 
processing claims at sites where profiles do not exist" (Highlights, 
paragraph 2, line 13; Page 5, paragraph l, line 4). In fact, NIOSH has 
developed innovative solutions to process claims (i.e., complete dose 
reconstructions) where site profiles are still under development. Using 
complex wide technical information bulletins, NIOSH has been able to 
process cases from more than 70 different DOE and AWE sites. While it 
is true that many claims will need a full site profile in order to 
achieve the scientific accuracy necessary to complete a dose 
reconstruction, NIOSH has completed and continues to complete dose 
reconstructions for claims in which sufficient scientific accuracy can 
be achieved without the use of fully developed SP.

The statistics "9 percent fully processed" (Page 18, paragraph 1, line 
6), "64 percent final decisions" and "36 percent closed for 
administrative reasons" (Page 19, Figure 4) do not appear accurate to 
NIOSH officials. This may be due to the metric being tracked (final 
decisions from DOL). From a NIOSH perspective, it was indicated to GAO 
that, as of the end of July 2004, 25 percent of the cases submitted had 
been returned to DOL with completed dose reconstructions. However, DOL 
should be consulted for accuracy of each of these statistics because 
NIOSH does not have full access to these numbers and a lag time exists 
between NIOSH completion of dose reconstruction cases and final 
decisions by DOL. 

[End of section]

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Andrew Sherrill (202) 512-7252 Mary F. Nugent (312) 220-7645:

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to the above contacts, Melinda L. Cordero and 
Rosemary Torres Lerma made significant contributions to this report. 
Luann Moy and William Bates assisted with methodology and data 
analysis, Margaret Armen provided legal support, and Amy E. Buck 
assisted with the message and report development.

FOOTNOTES

[1] NIOSH is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

[2] These four locations include three gaseous diffusion plants in Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee, Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, and an 
underground nuclear test site on Amchitka Island, Alaska. 

[3] The statute created an Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 
Health, which is responsible for advising the President whether workers 
at other locations should be added to the special exposure cohort. 
NIOSH provides support to the Advisory Board on this and other matters.

[4] GAO. Energy Employees Compensation: Even with Needed Improvements 
in Case Processing, Program Structure May Result in Inconsistent 
Benefit Outcomes, GAO-04-516 (Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004).

[5] These 30,000 claims correspond to nearly 23,000 cases involving 
individual workers. Multiple claims can be associated with a single 
case when multiple survivors file claims related to the same worker. 

[6] The more than 21,000 claims referred to NIOSH for dose 
reconstruction correspond to more than 15,000 cases involving 
individual workers for whom dose reconstructions need to be completed. 

[7] This is referred to as determining the "probability of causation."

[8] Claimants who submit Subtitle B claims to Labor may also submit 
Subtitle D claims to Energy if they qualify for this program. There is 
no offset provision that would preclude a claimant receiving 
compensation under one of these programs from also receiving 
compensation under the other program.

[9] Beryllium disease primarily affects the lungs and is caused by 
people inhaling beryllium dust or fumes. Chronic silicosis is a lung 
disease caused by overexposure to crystalline silica, a major component 
of sand, rock, and mineral ores. Chronic silicosis is only covered for 
individuals who worked in nuclear test tunnels in Nevada and Alaska. 

[10] For RECA claims, Labor verifies with the Department of Justice 
that the claimant had been previously awarded compensation under the 
RECA program. For all other claims, Labor verifies that the claimant 
meets the employment and illness criteria.

[11] These specified cancers include leukemia, multiple myeloma, 
lymphomas, as well as lung, thyroid, breast, esophagus, stomach, 
pharynx, small intestine, pancreas, bile duct, gall bladder, salivary 
gland, bladder, brain, colon, ovary, liver, bone, and renal cancers. 
Additional criteria, such as how soon the cancer developed after the 
first exposure to radiation, must also be met for many of these 
cancers.

[12] These claims involve such things as cancers incurred at a non-
special exposure cohort facility or workers who did not have sufficient 
employment duration to qualify for the special exposure cohort.

[13] GPRA requires federal agencies to establish standards measuring 
their performance and effectiveness.

[14] These 30,000 claims correspond to nearly 23,000 cases involving 
individual workers. Multiple claims can be associated with a single 
case when multiple survivors file claims related to the same worker. 

[15] Some of the claims still in processing may be referred to NIOSH 
for dose reconstruction as claim processing continues.

[16] Claims can be closed for various administrative reasons, including 
claimants withdrawing the claim or dying prior to the final processing 
of the claim. In the event that a claimant dies prior to final 
processing, an eligible survivor may file a new claim. 

[17] The illnesses reported here are not mutually exclusive; claimants 
may report multiple illnesses and may have reported an illness that we 
did not report here. Therefore the totals for the illnesses reported 
here do not add to 100 percent.

[18] About one-third of the approved claims were filed by workers 
rather than survivors; these workers would be eligible for medical and 
travel-related expenses. 

[19] Initial processing of claims includes such activities as 
recommending that a claim be denied because it does not meet the 
eligibility criteria or referring a claim to NIOSH for dose 
reconstruction. Labor has specified various time periods for initial 
processing, including processing claims for Energy employees or 
contractors within 120 days 75 percent of the time and processing 
claims for employees of atomic weapons employers or beryllium vendor 
facilities within 180 days 75 percent of the time.

[20] Final decision processing of claims includes such activities as 
issuing a recommended decision for approved claims and timely 
responding to a request for a hearing. Labor has specified time periods 
for these activities, including issuing final decisions for approved 
claims within 75 days of the recommended decision 75 percent of the 
time and issuing final decisions in formal hearings within 250 days of 
the request for hearing 75 percent of the time.

[21] These 21,000 claims correspond with more than 15,000 cases 
involving individual workers for whom dose reconstructions would need 
to be completed. Multiple survivor claims can be associated with the 
same worker, and hence there are more claims to be processed by Labor 
than dose reconstructions to be completed by NIOSH. See appendix III 
for additional comparative information on the status of claims and 
cases. The approximately 19,000 claims that were in processing as of 
January 31, 2004, corresponded to about 14,000 dose reconstructions 
that needed to be completed.

[22] Claims can be closed for various administrative reasons, including 
a claimant withdrawing the claim or dying prior to the final processing 
of the claim. In the event that a claimant dies prior to final 
processing, an eligible survivor may file a new claim. 

[23] NIOSH develops a claim prior to completing a dose reconstruction 
by completing such activities as interviewing claimants and obtaining 
individuals' radiation exposure records from Energy or other sources as 
appropriate. 

[24] These claim approval decisions were based on the results of about 
500 dose reconstructions.

[25] These claim denial decisions were based on the results of about 
500 dose reconstructions.

[26] Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation, 42 CFR 
Part 81, May 2, 2002, and Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction 
under the Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 
2000, 42 CFR Part 82, May 2, 2002.

[27] As required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136), NIOSH issued a report to Congress, 
titled Access to Information for Performance of Radiation Dose 
Reconstruction.

[28] Testimony of Dr. John Howard, Director, NIOSH, before the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, March 30, 2004.

[29] For example, these processing goals established specified time 
frames for activities such as receiving dose-monitoring data from 
Energy and conducting claimant interviews. NIOSH officials stated that 
program performance with respect to these goals has improved 
substantially over time.

[30] GAO is doing follow-up work to examine issues related to the 
contractor receiving timely access to information needed to conduct the 
evaluation.

[31] GAO. Veterans' Benefits: Independent Review Could Improve 
Credibility of Radiation Exposure Estimates, GAO/HEHS-00-32 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 2000).

[32] As the regulations were being developed, five different pieces of 
legislation were introduced by members of Congress that would add 
certain workers to the special exposure cohort. Specifically, 
Representative Quinn introduced H.R. 3689 on December 8, 2003, to add 
certain workers from a Bethlehem Steel plant in New York. 
Representative Mark Udall introduced H.R. 3843 on February 25, 2004, to 
add certain workers from the Rocky Flats site in Colorado. 
Representative Tom Udall introduced H.R. 4388 on May 18, 2004, to add 
certain workers from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. 
Senator Bond introduced S. 2047 on February 2, 2004, to add certain 
workers from the Mallinckrodt facilities (including the St. Louis 
downtown facility, the Weldon Springs facility, and the Hematite 
facility) in Missouri and Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Iowa. As of 
June 2004, none of the bills had been passed. On June 17, 2004, 
however, Senator Bond offered an amendment to S. 2400 (the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005) that included the same 
text as S. 2047. The Defense Authorization Act passed the Senate on 
June 23, 2004, with the Bond amendment included. 

[33] GAO is doing follow-up work to examine issues related to the 
adequacy of the regulations on special exposure cohort status.

GAO's Mission:

The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: