By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, July 02, 2017
Ask a politician how he wants to balance the budget and,
nine times out of ten, he’ll give you a politician’s answer: cutting “waste,
fraud, and abuse.” Normally, the correct response to this is contempt and
mockery: What drives federal spending isn’t office supplies walking out the
back door with a rogue secretary at the Merit Systems Protection Board — what
drives federal spending is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
And you know where there’s a lot of waste, fraud, and
abuse? Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Identifying small-ball efficiencies at obscure federal
agencies would not do very much to get federal spending under control, but
getting a grip on the shenanigans that plague the major entitlements —
especially the health-care entitlements — could mean substantial savings,
“substantial” here meaning hundreds of billions of dollars.
Medicare and Medicaid together account for about $1
trillion in federal spending annually, and estimates suggest that $1 out of
ever $10 of that spending is fraud. Some estimates go much higher. We do not
have a very good idea of exactly how extensive fraud in the system is, because
the federal government has put a fair amount of effort into not knowing.
According to Malcolm Sparrow, a Harvard professor of public management who
studies medical fraud, the government’s approach long has been backward:
“Basically, the audits they’re using on a random sample are nothing like fraud
audits,” he told The Nation. “The
difference between a fraud audit and a medical review audit — a medical review
audit, you’re taking all the information as if it’s true and testing whether
the medical judgment seems appropriate. You can use these techniques to see
where judgments are unorthodox or payment rules have not been followed, but
almost nothing in these methods tests whether the information you have is
true.”
Which is to say, investigators are asking whether a
certain treatment was in fact appropriate for what ails Mrs. Jones, not whether
Mrs. Jones exists.
Fraud tends to cluster in certain areas and in certain
treatment categories. The reason for that is that this fraud is not random, not
just the result of some yahoo general practitioner in Eucheeanna padding his
bills. It’s the work of organized crime. As Sparrow points out, when there is a
criminal case filed against one of these fraud artists, then billing in a
particular category — some years ago, it was HIV fusion treatments — falls off
steeply, by as much as 90 percent. The implication here is that fraudulent
billing may make up the majority of
Medicaid and Medicare spending in some categories.
This is a major criminal enterprise, one involving
transnational crime syndicates looking for a better return than that provided
by drug smuggling and the other familiar rackets. According to The Economist:
Some criminals are switching from
cocaine trafficking to prescription-drug fraud because the risk-adjusted
rewards are higher: the money is still good, the work safer and the penalties
lighter. Medicare gumshoes in Florida regularly find stockpiles of weapons when
making arrests. The gangs are often bound by ethnic ties: Russians in New York,
Cubans in Miami, Nigerians in Houston and so on.
What to do?
On a dollar-per-dollar basis, the Department of Health
and Human Services fraud-recovery units by most accounts do relatively
effective work — but do not do very much of it, having recovered less than $2
billion in fraud losses in fiscal 2016. And there were only 1,160 convictions
in fraud cases in 2016, or barely one fraud conviction a year for every two staffers in the anti-fraud division.
There might be some benefit to beefing up the conventional in-house anti-fraud
investigations (Sparrow has suggested setting aside 2 percent of the budget to
protect the other 98 percent), especially if the additional funds are used in
support of more-intelligent investigatory approaches. But that does not seem
likely to be sufficient.
Without indulging in black-helicopter stuff, we should
squarely face the fact that organized-crime syndicates are being permitted to
use our medical entitlements to loot the Treasury, and that not very much is
being done about that, which suggests the possibility — only a possibility —
that there is political collusion in this at some level. Entitlement fraud
involves enough money and enough diverse political interests — 40 percent of
the residents of Los Angeles County receive Medicaid — to warrant a genuinely
independent investigation.
How about we ask Peter Thiel to get involved in that?
Thiel, a friend of the Trump administration and of this
magazine, is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who cofounded PayPal. As a payment
system, PayPal was a natural target for fraud artists, and it developed
sophisticated anti-fraud protocols, some of which were incorporated into a
subsequent Thiel business called Palantir, a powerful data-mining platform that
is used by everybody from U.S. intelligence agents to police detectives, for
tasks ranging from mapping out where IEDs are likely to be planted to — more
relevant to our immediate concern here — identifying fraud. The Centers for
Medicaid and Medicare Services have run a few tests in which they attempted to
use the system to identify fraud, but it is not clear whether that has resulted
in wider implementation. My request to the agency for information on this
matter remained unanswered as of this writing.
It should be understood that data mining isn’t a
substitute for intelligent analysis — it isn’t a black box that can be switched
on and start spitting out the home addresses of fraudsters. It is a tool, but
one that can be used effectively only by an intelligent and creative team of
human analysts. Entitlement fraud is what security experts describe as an
“adaptive threat,” meaning that it is a problem without a solution, because the
problem mutates in response to every solution developed. But even problems that
cannot be solved can be managed, and we desperately need better management
here. The “Let’s Put a Businessman in
Charge!” school of public affairs has its limits, but lessons learned
from technology companies’ experience with fraud prevention ought to be
applicable here.
Policing “waste, fraud, and abuse” is not going to solve
our national fiscal problem, though a few hundred billion a year would be real
money. But progress on that front might help solve one of our national political problems: the crisis of trust
in our institutions. We spend a great deal of money on government and public
services, and there is a general impression — it is not inaccurate — that much
of that money is not well spent.
Those Aston
Martin–driving welfare queens in Brighton Beach do not just cost us money —
they cost us that most precious of commodities in a free society: trust. For
that reason as well as the billions of dollars at stake, our would-be
health-care reformers ought to incorporate a hammer-and-tongs attack on
entitlement fraud, and on fraud across federal spending generally, into their
legislative agendas. The sooner the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment