Government Watchdog Report Shows How Easy It Is to Fraudulently Access Subsidies Under Obamacare

On January 1, the day that Obamacare's primary insurance coverage expansion mechanisms kicked in, former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius submitted a letter to the president.
On the very first page of the letter, Sebelius personally certified that Obamacare's health insurance exchanges "verify that applicants for advance payments of the premium tax credit and cost-sharing reductions are eligible for such payments and reductions" as required by the law. "When a consumer applies for insurance affordability programs, including advance payments of the premium tax credit and cost-sharing reductions, the Marketplace [the exchanges] verifies application information provided by the consumer" in order to assess eligibility.
In short, when people apply for Obamacare's health insurance subsidies, there's a robust, reliable system in place to check their documentation and determine whether or not they are really eligible.
But as it turns out, there isn't. Not really. Not one that actually works, or even really attempts to work.
Undercover investigators from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) spent some time this year attempting to see if it would be possible to get subsidies using false application information. They set up fake names and Social Security numbers that aren't real, then claimed citizenship or legal residence, according to the AP, which obtained an early copy of the GAO report. They submitted applications with income amounts that should have been too high to get subsidies. In other words, they fed the system blatantly fraudulent information that should have been swiftly rejected.
But the majority of their attempts were successful anyway (the AP says 11 of 18; The New York Times reports 11 of 12). Indeed, the agency is still paying its share of the premiums on those accounts, because the Obama administration, which certified the validity of its subsidy verification system, just a few months ago, hasn't caught on to the fraudulent accounts yet.
The GAO did not rely on complex schemes or trickery. Instead, they called, or went online, and worked through the application process. Of the six telephone attempts that the agency attempted, five went through. The lone rejection occurred when the GAO investigator refused to supply a Social Security number at all. Several attempts that were initially blocked online were later approved over the phone.
The details of the report strongly suggest that there is in fact no meaningful system in place to check and verify application information. The federal contractor supposedly in charge of weeding out fraudulent applications told the GAO that "it does not seek to detect fraud and accepts documents as authentic unless there are obvious alterations." The contractor also said that because applicants supply copies of their paperwork, it cannot determine their authenticity.
The AP article suggests that the possibilities for fraud are limited because individuals cannot themselves access the funds paid for subsidies. But even still, the program is clearly susceptible to abuse by people who do not qualify for subsidies under the law. And neither the administration, which wants to sign up as many people as possible regardless of actual eligibility, nor the insurers, which get paid for each person who signs up, have much of an incentive to make the system work better.
The upshot, then, is this: Not only did the administration not set up a working verification system, they lied about it and said they did.
(And, obviously, this is completely aside from questions about the legality of issuing subsidies in the federally run exchanges.)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Not only did the administration not set up a working verification system, they lied about it and said they did.
Yet another FAKE SCANDAL!!
But... BOOOOSSHHH!!!!
"verification" is code for RACISM!
Nice, anon.
+1 microaggression
The AP article suggests that the possibilities for fraud are limited because individuals cannot themselves access the funds paid for subsidies.
Is the AP on fucking crack?
So I guess we can end the subsidies/ACA and we're all good now?
The best part is that the AP refuses to see that maybe, just -maybe- someone working for an insurance company *might* decide to pad their own wallet.
Even if they don't, how is it not fraud to get cheaper, subsidized health insurance by lying in the application? Isn't that pretty much the freaking definition of fraud??
This is only tax dollars so it's free.
But as it turns out, there isn't. Not really. Not one that actually works, or even really attempts to work
I am shocked, shocked I tell you!
Well, not. This program has nothing to do with helping people who actually need help anyway, it's just another massive federal government program to move money around in a way that they can control/steal it and more control over the citizenry.
Well, everyone said we needed a health care system like the rest of the civilized world.
+1 Euro
+1 Civilization
they lied about it and said they did.
At least someone's calling them liars.
This such a FAKE scandal. The real scandal is all these pro-lifers getting upset over a Portland ice cream shop making a Planned Parenthood flavor ice cream. Those crazy conservatives!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....10578.html
I might try Placenta Ripple.
Clump O' Cells Sorbet.
Baby Brickle
Plan Blueberry
Trimester Tutti Frutti
No Regrets Raspberry
Dilation Delight
Gamete Grape
Gyno-Green Tea
Miscarriage Mint
No-Neonate Neapolitan
Placenta Pistachio
Vacuum Vanilla
I prefer prophylactic pecan. But if it's not done correctly, it can be a bit rubbery.
NRO: It's Time for Conservatives to Stop Defending Police
There is nothing conservative about government violating the rights of citizens.
Sorry, wrong thread.
"Wrong thread"?
Johnny, this is *Hit and Run*, remember?
Meh. It's always the right thread to mention government-sponsored violence against citizens.
^ THIS, THIS, THIS ^
Yep.
Surprised it's not Cooke or Williamson, they seem to be the only worthwhile guys left over there
I thought they said upfront that the verification system was to make someone swear, Scout's honor, without even checking to see if their fingers were crossed.
It is, but you still have to provide a social sec number.
How do people get these fraud dollars? I want to steal from the government!!!
Do you keep any of your paycheck?
Those are all the government's dollars, so congratulations - you're stealing from the government!
I forgot! Thanks 🙂
This is what 'Tony' really believes.
Yes, I want in on this too. Is there gonna be a meeting?
It's in my underground bunker in the West End of Cincinnati Ohio. The password is "boobies".
You ratbagging teafuckers are willing to deny medical care to sick children just because someone, somewhere might be cheating!!1!
I'm practicing my progspeak. Did I get that right?
Close. I give it a C, could upgrade to an A+ if you didn't forget racism and war on women.
Close... Now try again with feeling... I want to read the neck beard in your words..
Also should include "And that's why we need a single payer system!"
Oh, damn it. I forgot that.
*hangs head in shame*
That was OK. Let me try.
Of course the Tea Party gets all pissed off about some hypothetical scenario where someone might get cheaper health care, but they're all for the Koch's and other 1%-ers actually, verifiably getting huge tax breaks, which of course the poor and working class have to then pay for. But God forbid some poor single mother actually be able to afford health care for her children and herself!
NNEDZ MOAR CAPS!!!!
How exactly does one go about getting a job at GAO?
You could try starting here.
Good luck. GAO seems like a pretty good gig.
The GAO guys I've met say it's a bit like being Cassandra.
Jesus, Bo makes a good point sometimes but good lord I think he had a stroke in the Women thread.
pedant is pedantic
I suspect this is why the income verification doesn't work - they never link somebody's application to any existing records about a person. I mean, come on, somewhere there ought to be an inner join on social security number.
But SSN was never supposed to be linked to anything but your SS account!
Besides the FBI rap sheet?
None of the verification works because (AFAIK) the back-end of healthcare.gov has never been finished. It was always a mess: a plan to kludge together at least 55 government databases.
They submitted applications with income amounts that should have been too high to get subsidies. In other words, they fed the system blatantly fraudulent information that should have been swiftly rejected.
If their submitted applications accurately had income amounts that should have been too high to get subsidies, then the applicant didn't commit fraud. Either the insurer did, or the system is simply screwed up. Actually, I suspect the government itself might be distorting things -- trying to alleviate opposition to Obamacare by greasing the wheels of public opinion with inflated subsidies -- and that this is a more widespread issue than any consumer fraud.
It's been acceptable to lie when you are campaigning, that's politics.
Aren't we protected from all out fraud by the executive branch? It's should be the administration of laws, not campaign stumping.
It is truth that people are not informed neither about the benefits which they could have got nor about risks which may occur as a result of conducting a deal. People themselves have to look for information and to be able to find the relevant one. At least you may be get approved for a loan online which will provide you with complete knowledge so that you could make a deliberated decision.
Holy crap. They are actually selling a pro-abortion ice cream that has little pink and red flecks in it?
Apparently so. Abortion is to be celebrated after all.
Human sacrifice is among our most sacred institution, TeaBaggers!!
It is proper to eat it using forceps.
Or a vacuum.
I think it's kind of good that he plays devil advocate, it keeps this place from becoming a complete echo chamber. But to argue with John with some benign statement that didn't disprove anything he said was just literally the most asinine thread ever.
This is my view as well. I think he could be a good poster here by bringing a different perspective from most people here but he's a pedantic dick far too often. It got progressively worse as more people started calling him out. I think at times he was criticized unfairly (like when people got pissed just because he posted links about anti-liberty socons) but even then he plays the victim card too much by making it seem like that was the only reason people criticized him.
It's the calm ones that are most effective and therefore most dangerous. My mom believes NPR is moderate because no one is yelling.