Policymakers and program managers are continually seeking ways to improve accountability in achieving an entity's mission. A key factor in improving accountability in achieving an entity's mission is to implement an effective internal control system. An effective internal control system helps an entity adapt to shifting environments, evolving demands, changing risks, and new priorities. As programs change and entities strive to improve operational processes and implement new technology, management continually evaluates its internal control system so that it is effective and updated when necessary. Section 3512 (c) and (d) of Title 31 of the United States Code (commonly known as the Federal Managers? Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)) requires the Comptroller General to issue standards for internal control in the federal government.

The federal government is the worlds largest and most complex entity, with about $3 trillion in outlays in fiscal year 2008 funding a broad array of programs and operations. GAOs biennial reports on high-risk areas, done since 1990, are meant to bring focus to specific areas needing added attention. Areas are identified, in some cases, as high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. GAO also identifies high-risk areas needing broad-based transformation to address major economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges. In this 2009 update for the 111th Congress, GAO presents the status of high-risk areas listed in 2007 and identifies new high-risk areas warranting attention by Congress and the executive branch. Solutions to high-risk problems offer the potential to save billions of dollars, dramatically improve service to the public, strengthen confidence and trust in the performance and accountability of the U.S. government, and ensure the ability of government to deliver on its promises. This report contains GAOs views on what remains to be done to bring about lasting solutions for each high-risk area. Perseverance by the executive branch in implementing GAOs recommended solutions and continued oversight and action by Congress are both essential to achieving progress.

Audits provide essential accountability and transparency over government programs. Given the current challenges facing governments and their programs, the oversight provided through auditing is more critical than ever. Government auditing provides the objective analysis and information needed to make the decisions necessary to help create a better future. The professional standards presented in this 2018 revision of Government Auditing Standards (known as the Yellow Book) provide a framework for performing high-quality audit work with competence, integrity, objectivity, and independence to provide accountability and to help improve government operations and services. These standards, commonly referred to as generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), provide the foundation for government auditors to lead by example in the areas of independence, transparency, accountability, and quality through the audit process. This revision contains major changes from, and supersedes, the 2011 revision.

In the United States, some populations suffer from far greater disparities in health than others. Those disparities are caused not only by fundamental differences in health status across segments of the population, but also because of inequities in factors that impact health status, so-called determinants of health. Only part of an individual's health status depends on his or her behavior and choice; community-wide problems like poverty, unemployment, poor education, inadequate housing, poor public transportation, interpersonal violence, and decaying neighborhoods also contribute to health inequities, as well as the historic and ongoing interplay of structures, policies, and norms that shape lives. When these factors are not optimal in a community, it does not mean they are intractable: such inequities can be mitigated by social policies that can shape health in powerful ways. Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity seeks to delineate the causes of and the solutions to health inequities in the United States. This report focuses on what communities can do to promote health equity, what actions are needed by the many and varied stakeholders that are part of communities or support them, as well as the root causes and structural barriers that need to be overcome.

Globalization is rapidly changing lives and industries around the world. Drug development, authorization, and regulatory supervision have become international endeavors, with most medicines becoming global commodities. Drug companies utilize global supply chains that often include facilities in countries with inconsistent regulations from those of the United States, perform pivotal trials in multiple countries to support registration submissions in various jurisdictions, and subsequently market their medicines throughout most of the world. These companies operate across borders and require individual national regulators to ensure that drugs authorized for use in their countries are safe and effective, and appropriate for their health care system and their population. This process involves significant resources and often duplicative work. It is important to consider how this process can be improved in order to better allocate resources, time, and efforts to improve public health. Regulating Medicines in a Globalized World: The Need for Increased Reliance Among Regulators considers the role of mutual recognition and other reliance activities among regulators in contributing to enhancing public health. This report identifies opportunities for leveraging reliance activities more broadly in order to potentially impact public health globally. Key topics in this report include the job of medicines regulators in today's world, what policy makers need to know about today's regulatory environment, stakeholder views of recognition and reliance, as well as removing impediments and facilitating action for greater recognition and reliance among regulatory authorities.

This book delineates the state of the art of the diagnosis and treatment of J wave syndromes, as well as where future research needs to be directed. It covers basic science, translational and clinical aspects of these syndromes. The authors are leading experts in their respective fields, who have contributed prominently to the literature concerning these topics. J wave syndromes are one of the hottest topics in cardiology today. Cardiac arrhythmias associated with Brugada syndrome (BrS) or an early repolarization (ER) pattern in the inferior or infero-lateral ECG leads are thought to be mechanistically linked to accentuation of transient outward current (Ito)-mediated J waves. Although BrS and ER syndrome (ERS) differ with respect to magnitude and lead location of abnormal J waves, they are thought to represent a continuous spectrum of phenotypic expression termed J wave syndromes. ERS is divided into three subtypes with the most severe, Type 3, displaying an ER pattern globally in the inferior, lateral and right precordial leads. BrS has been linked to mutations in 19 different genes, whereas ERS has been associated with mutations in 7 different genes. There is a great deal of confusion as to how to properly diagnose and treat the J wave syndromes as well as confusion about the underlying mechanisms. The demonstration of successful epicardial ablation of BrS has provided new therapeutic options for the management of this syndrome for which treatment alternatives are currently very limited, particularly in the case of electrical storms caused by otherwise uncontrollable recurrent VT/VF. An early repolarization pattern is observed in 2-5% of the US population. While it is clear that the vast majority of individuals exhibiting an ER pattern are not at risk for sudden cardiac death, the challenge moving forward is to identify those individuals who truly are at risk and to design safe and effective treatments.