Medicaid frauds may have gotten up to $213 million from federal government

Healthcare providers banned from Medicaid may have been reimbursed $213 million in federal money, thanks to a state agency oversight, a government watchdog reported.

Valid identification numbers — identifiers that ensure providers are eligible for Medicaid reimbursements — were missing from 800,000 Colorado claims in 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services inspector general reported Wednesday.

The state reimbursed the providers $424.4 million for the claims, of which, $213 million was federal money.

"Medicaid claims submitted for reimbursement that do not have [identification numbers] are thus more vulnerable to improper payments," the report said. "In fact, it is possible that the state agency paid claims that had been submitted by federally banned providers."

Federal law requires that Medicaid claims must include valid identification numbers. Providers can be banned for reasons such as committing fraud.

Investigators reported that more than 798,000 of the 2011 claims totaling at least $212.1 million in federal money were missing identification numbers. Another 4,700 claims totaling about half a million dollars in federal money had identification numbers that did not match any provider.

The providers were reimbursed because Colorado's claims processing software didn't alert officials of invalid or missing identification numbers, the inspector general found.

read more:

Views: 122

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

make those responsible repay out of their own corrupt pockets!!!!!  They surely pocketed a portion of the graft money themselves, they always do!!!!!

This truly makes me sick.  I hope when people pull off this fraud they realize this is the money of the tax payer.

In all Public Organizations, Federal, State, County, Cities, using 'Public Dollar's' should be helt to a 'higher standard' of Zero Tolerance.  Private Organizations, standards of fiscal control, will be set by their Boards, Shareholders, etc.  

Does, it surprise me about the 'lack or delayed, oversight of Public Agencies!  No!  With lack of Oversight, there can be 'breeding grounds' for 'Fraud, Waste and Abuse.'  So, yes everyone, involved with Spending is to blame for FWA, but the Overseer's, are the 'most to blame'.  Why?  Simple, they are not 'doing their jobs'!  If, they are over burden, then 'kick the cause' upstairs.  Get the 'Tool's, to support what ever is their mission.    As, a Taxpayer (not by far, the only one) its not Fair for other's to 'waste' funds or resources, these items, can be put to better use!  Can we blame, the One's who violated the Rules/Regulations, Sure!  Can they recoup those missing Millions, Sure they can!  But, does it Cost more to recover those funds?

As, a former controller of Public Funds, as additional Duty, it was one of the 'few' additional duties, that could get me jail time!  Did I take it seriously, you betcha!  As, a 'Auditor' other duty as assigned, I found and recovered several 'abuses' of Travel Voucher's.  For Everyone of us, that took all of our Duties, seriously, there was other's not so serious!  Eventually, the systems of 'Check and Balances' worked, but it took Work and Oversight!  "If you as a 'department' can't get the job done, quit and find a 'department' that can, there is no room for one dollar of Public Money, to be wasted.  Inspector General's of the USA Governance's, 'get the lead out, break the Routine of 'this is how we always did it', change Ways of Management, follow the Rules and Regulations, as written (plus Spirit of the Law) or change the one's not working and the Attitudes will follow!   I'm positive, maybe?  2015

If we did that we would be in jail.

I am sure that this estimate is low.




Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Goodbye 2020: Clinton Ordered By Federal Judge To Submit To Questioning

( – Just when Hillary Clinton began hinting that she’s ready to run again in 2020, she has been ordered by a federal judge to submit to questioning about the use of her private email server to convey classified documents during her time as Secretary of State.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan made the order as part of a lawsuit from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

“Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions — including key q’s about the setting up of her email system,” wrote Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a tweet following the ruling.

Judicial Watch 🔎 @JudicialWatch

BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced today that, following JW's court battle, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer – under oath – two additional questions on her controversial email system within 30 days.

Judicial Watch: Federal Court Ordered Hillary Clinton to Answer Additional Email Questions Under...

 (Washington, DC) –Judicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that within 30 days Hillary Clinton must answer under oath two additional questions about her...
Tom Fitton  @TomFitton

Breaking: Court rules late today Hillary Clinton must answer more email questions -- including key q's about the setting up of her email system. Court denied our request to unseal vid depositions of Clinton aides. Great work by Michael Bekesha!

As a statement from Judicial Watch explains, the ruling is the latest development in the group’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which they began to discover why former deputy chief of staff to Mrs. Clinton, Huma Abedin, was allowed to work at the State Department while also engaged in “outside employment.”

Clinton now has 30 days to answer two key questions from a list of 25 questions composed by Judicial Watch.

The questions the judge selected are:

1) “Describe the creation of the system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.”

During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

This new development is huge because it means that the two critical scandals from Clinton’s time in the State Department, her private email server and the Benghazi attacks, are facing fresh scrutiny in both the legal system and the court of public opinion.

And while Clinton likely had little chance of any run in 2020, this makes it even less likely she will stand even a shred of a chance.

We’ve have got to hope and pray that at long last, this leads to the long overdue criminal charges we’ve all been waiting to see.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service