A recent arrest in New York City illustrates a common fraud method that Pondera has been talking about for years: falsifying an identity (of an individual or business) and using it across multiple states, or in this particular case, across multiple subsidy programs within a state.
In February of this year, the New York State Attorney announced the arrest of several individuals allegedly involved with a fraudulent medical supply company. The company’s owner operated under a false social security number and billed the State Medicaid system for an expensive nutritional formula required by patients with feeding tubes. In actuality, when they delivered the service at all, they dispensed lower-priced Pediasure to dramatically increase their profits—apparently ignoring the health consequences to the patient.
But, as is often the case with bad actors, they didn’t stop there. In addition to their fraudulently obtained Medicaid profits, the fraudsters also used their fake socials and claimed income of less than $800 per month in order to qualify for Welfare payments. This despite the fact their medical “business” incomes were over $180,000 per year. It would not surprise me to learn that these same people were operating in other subsidy programs or in neighboring states.
This is a disturbing, but somewhat logical, pattern that we see again and again. When someone goes to the trouble of creating a fake identity or business, they use it to generate as much income as possible. They “fly below the radar” of each individual program (or state) to avoid detection, but the fraud can be very lucrative in aggregate.
The obvious solution to this is increased cooperation and data sharing across programs within a state and across states. The federal government has made significant efforts to support data sharing including the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE), the Death Master File, and the Prisoner Update Processing System (PUPS) which can help identify claims that are fraudulently made by ineligible, deceased, or incarcerated identities.
Our hope is that these efforts expand, including at the state level, where multiple agencies cooperate to identify cross-program fraud schemes. It is not enough to detect and then stop individual incidents of fraud. Many of these incidents are too small, when viewed as discrete occurrences, to warrant prosecution. Knowing this, enterprising fraudsters “sprinkle” their claims across multiple jurisdictions to avoid attention.
Unfortunately, as was the case in New York, even these smaller, distributed fraud efforts can have an impact on patient health. The good news is that New York detected and put an end to this incident. But we all know there are thousands of similar cases each year.