Is ongoing monitoring of corrective actions necessary after addressing non-compliance or Fraud, Waste, and Abuse (FWA)?

• A. Yes
• B. No
• C. Sometimes
• D. Not specified

Answer: (B)

After you implement corrective actions to address non-compliance or FWA, the important step is to verify that those actions actually work and that the risk has been mitigated. If the controls are effective and there’s no remaining risk of recurrence, you don’t need to keep actively monitoring those specific corrective actions. Resources are better spent on areas with ongoing risk, while periodic oversight may continue as part of normal governance, especially if regulations or internal policies require it. So, in this scenario, ongoing monitoring of those corrective actions isn’t necessary.

Why the other ideas don’t fit as well: insisting that monitoring is always required would overstate the need for follow-up in every case, and saying it’s sometimes appropriate would imply a conditional approach without the explicit risk assessment backing it. Saying it’s not specified would ignore the practical guidance that many frameworks provide on closing out corrective actions once effectiveness is confirmed.