Opinion - What to do about $1.1 trillion in improper Medicaid payments
According to official reports, the government issued $543 billion in improper Medicaid payments from 2015 to 2024. But that's only what the government measured.
Based on the few years that the government performed full audits, I coauthored a report with Paragon Health Institute President Brian Blase that estimated that the true amount of improper payments is twice that, totaling roughly $1.1 trillion over the last decade. That's a whopping $8,200 per U.S. household.
The primary reason for the discrepancy is that the Obama and Biden administrations excluded eligibility checks in their audits of improper payments in Medicaid. But eligibility errors and failures to properly assess eligibility prior to enrollment are the biggest sources of improper payments.
Since Medicaid is a means-tested welfare program and includes different federal reimbursement rates based on enrollees' eligibility status, checking eligibility is crucial. In many cases, individuals who are not eligible for the program are enrolled in it, and in other instances, those enrolled are wrongly classified.
The federal government reimburses states for between 50 percent and 75 percent of Medicaid costs for their traditional Medicaid enrollees — which includes children, pregnant women, seniors and individuals with disabilities — with lower rates in wealthier states. The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age and generally childless individuals, which crowded out access to care for traditional enrollees.
Because expansion enrollees receive a much higher 90 percent federal reimbursement, states have the incentive to wrongly classify traditional enrollees as expansion enrollees.
Moreover, hospitals can use presumptive eligibility, which is an expedited Medicaid enrollment process that permits hospitals to essentially enroll people into Medicaid based on only a few questions about income and household size and without verification. People receive temporary Medicaid coverage pending a review.
The Foundation for Government Accountability found that in 2018, 70 percent of people deemed eligible by hospitals were eventually determined ineligible or did not complete the application and have their information verified.
Measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic — including increasing federal support of Medicaid so long as states did not update their eligibility requirements or remove ineligible people from the program — led to an estimated 20 million ineligible enrollees on Medicaid by the time President Biden finally declared an end to the public health emergency.
Failing to even check for these eligibility errors in state Medicaid audits causes massive underreporting of improper payments. In 2019 and 2020 when the government conducted full audits that included eligibility determinations, the improper payment rates averaged 27 percent.
When we apply a 25 percent improper payment rate for all years between 2014 and 2023, we estimate roughly $1.1 trillion in improper Medicaid payments.
Much of this is money that should not have been spent if the federal and state governments were following the law. Congress enacted legislation directing the Health and Human Services secretary to push the cost of excessive improper payments back onto states by withholding federal funds for improper payments over three percent. Despite states routinely issuing improper payments many times that level, HHS has never withheld funds under that requirement.
To automatically incorporate accountability into improper payment rates, Congress should require CMS to reduce future federal Medicaid reimbursements to high-offender states so those states, which are responsible for managing the programs, bear the cost of their failures instead of federal taxpayers.
Moreover, to prevent underreporting of improper payments, federal policymakers should require states to conduct more frequent eligibility redeterminations, improve hospitals' presumptive eligibility enrollment and require full audits of improper payments including eligibility checks.
Many changes are necessary to improve Medicaid and protect the integrity of federal taxpayers' spending on it. Following the law and cracking down on improper payments is a common sense first step that could provide hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid savings.
Rachel Greszler is a visiting fellow in workforce at the Economic Policy Innovation Center and co-author with Brian Blase of the report, 'Medicaid's True Improper Payments Double Those Reported by CMS.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
FDA may pull authorization for Pfizer COVID shot for kids under 5
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering revoking the authorization of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children under 5 years old, the company confirmed Wednesday. The move would add another barrier for parents who want to vaccinate healthy children, as shots from Moderna and Novavax were approved for more limited populations. In May, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children or pregnant women. The CDC then updated its immunization schedule to reflect that children with no underlying health condition 'may receive' COVID-19 vaccines after consulting with a health care provider — what's known as 'shared decision-making.' If FDA pulls its emergency use authorization, Pfizer's vaccine would no longer be available to any children younger than 5. Right now, Moderna and Novavax shots could be administered 'off label' to healthy children. 'We are currently in discussions with the agency on potential paths forward and have requested that the EUA for this age group remain in place for the 2025-2026 season,' a Pfizer spokesman told The Hill. 'It is important to note that these deliberations are not related to the safety and efficacy of the vaccine which continues to demonstrate a favorable profile,' the company added. The Guardian first reported on the FDA's potential move. In a statement to The Hill, HHS said it wouldn't comment on potential changes. 'The COVID-19 pandemic ended with the expiration of the federal public health emergency in May 2023. We do not comment on potential, future regulatory changes. Unless officially announced by HHS, discussion about future agency action should be regarded as pure speculation,' HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said. Pfizer has had full FDA approval for its COVID-19 vaccine for individuals age 12 and older since 2022.
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
CDC shooter Patrick Joseph White's dad repeatedly called 911 fearing he was gunman
The father of the anti-vaxxer gunman who killed a cop when he fired more than 180 shots at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention repeatedly called 911 fearing that his son was responsible for the attack, newly released 911 calls show. Kenneth White had begged authorities for help as his son, Patrick Joseph White, was unleashing his reign of terror on the CDC's Atlanta headquarters last Friday, according to transcripts obtained by 11Alive. 'I'm very worried that he might have been involved in this shooting today,' the dad said in one call. Advertisement 3 Documents found in a search of the home where CDC shooter Patrick Joseph Smith lived with his parents revealed his discontent with the COVID-19 vaccinations. AP 'I can't get any information from anybody. I've called the DeKalb County 911 number three times and left detailed information, and no one ever called us back. I don't know if he was involved. I need some help.' In another call, the dad specifically asked for one officer to call back given he'd helped with his son in the past. Advertisement 'He has been involved last summer with some problems we had with my adult son,' the elder White said of the cop. '[The officer] had left me his name and number and said if you guys need anything with Patrick, give me a call.' Records show there had been at least 10 emergency calls made from the White family home over the last two years, including for suicide threats and domestic disturbances. 3 Patrick Joseph Smith fired more than 180 shots into the CDC campus in Atlanta and broke 150 windows on Friday. AP It wasn't immediately clear if authorities returned the calls from White's dad during Friday's incident. Advertisement The shooter, who authorities said blamed the COVID-19 vaccine for making him depressed and suicidal, was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound shortly after his rampage. Investigators said White had broken into a locked safe to get his father's weapons before he stormed the CDC's headquarters. CDC security guards had initially stopped White from driving into the campus Friday — so he parked near a pharmacy across the street and opened fire from the sidewalk, authorities said. 3 Police vehicles near Emory University and the CDC campus in Atlanta after the shooting on Aug. 8, 2025. Getty Images Advertisement His bullets broke about 150 'blast-resistant' windows across the campus. DeKalb County Police Officer David Rose was fatally shot while responding to the rampage, according to investigators. No one inside the CDC building was injured. In the aftermath, a search warrant at White's home uncovered a slew of written documents and electronic devices that are still being analyzed. Some of the materials 'expressed the shooter's discontent with the COVID-19 vaccinations' and his desire to make 'the public aware of his discontent with the vaccine,' Georgia Bureau of Investigation Director Chris Hosey said. With Post wires
Atlantic
25 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Has a New Definition of Human Rights
For nearly half a century, the State Department has reported annually on human-rights conditions in countries around the world. The purpose of this exercise is not to cast aspersions, but to collect and disseminate reliable information. Congress mandated the reports back in 1977, and since then, legislators and diplomats have used them to shape decisions about sanctions, foreign aid, immigration, and political asylum. Because the reports were perceived as relatively impartial, because they tried to reflect well-articulated standards—'internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights'—and because they were composed by professionals reporting from the ground, the annual documents became a gold standard, widely used by people around the world, cited in court cases and political campaigns. Year in and year out, one former official told me, they have been the most downloaded items on the State Department website. Quite a few people will also read the 2024 reports, published yesterday. But they will do so for very different reasons. The original drafts were ready in January, before the Biden administration left office, following the usual practice. In past years, the reports were published in March or April. But this year they were delayed for several months while President Donald Trump's political appointees, including Michael Anton, the MAGA intellectual who is now the State Department's director of policy planning, rewrote the drafts. Some of the changes affect the whole collection of documents, as entire categories of interest were removed. The Obama administration had previously put a strong focus on corruption, on the grounds that kleptocracy and autocracy are deeply linked, and it started collecting information on the persecution of sexual minorities. Over the past few weeks, as the new reports were being prepared, I spoke with former officials who had seen early versions, or who had worked on the reports in the past. As many of them expected, the latest reports do not address systemic discrimination against gay or trans people, and they remove observations about rape and violence against women. But the revisions also go much further than expected, dropping references to corruption, restrictions on free and fair elections, rights to a fair trial, and the harassment of human-rights organizations. Threats to freedom of assembly are no longer considered sufficiently important to mention. In a number of instances, criticism of Israel is classified, crudely, as 'antisemitism.' Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's use of the word genocide to describe the war in Gaza, for example, is listed as an act of 'antisemitism and antisemitic incitement,' even though that term, however disputable or controversial, has also been used by Israelis and in any case violates no international human-rights norms at all. Jonathan Chait: The pro-Israel right is shifting the definition of anti-Semitism Along with the category changes, entries for 20 countries were also flagged for special consideration. These were sent for review to Samuel Samson, a political appointee in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Dozens of professionals have been fired or removed from that office, widely known as DRL; Samson—who is, according to NPR, a recent college graduate and an alumnus of a program designed to put conservative activists into government jobs—remains. The end result of his and others' efforts are reports that contain harsh and surprising assessments of democratic U.S. allies, including the U.K., Romania, Germany, and Brazil, and softer depictions of some dictatorships and other countries favored by Trump or his entourage. El Salvador and Israel, I was told, required so much rewriting that these two entries help explain the long delay in the reports' publication. Reading the results, you can see why. The new Israel report is simply far shorter than the original draft, with no significant discussion of the humanitarian crisis or high death toll in Gaza. El Salvador is a blatant whitewash. 'There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses,' the latest report claims. By contrast, the previous report spoke of 'significant human rights issues' and specifically mentioned harsh, even lethal prison conditions. An Amnesty International report also covering 2024 speaks of 'arbitrary detentions and human rights violations' in El Salvador, as well as 'serious failings in the judicial system.' In overcrowded prisons, 'detention conditions were inhumane, with reports of torture and other ill-treatment.'Here, the State Department's motivation is not hard to guess. Because the Trump administration is sending prisoners to El Salvador, the department massaged the report to avoid the glaring truth: The U.S. is endangering people by sending them to Salvadorean prisons. The report on Germany, a highly functional democracy, is equally strange. The State report speaks of 'significant human rights issues,' including 'restrictions on freedom of expression.' One specific example: German law 'required internet companies, including U.S. internet platforms, to take down hate speech within 24 hours or face stiff fines.' Germans, in other words, are being called human-rights abusers because they continue to outlaw Nazi propaganda, as they have done since 1945. The Trump administration's motives are clear here too. The goal is to please U.S. tech companies, notably X, that find it convenient or profitable to spread Nazi propaganda, and perhaps to help the Alternative for Germany, the far-right party publicly praised and courted by J. D. Vance. But the details of the reports are less important than the overall impact. Several former officials pointed out that the U.S. has not only abandoned internationally accepted definitions of what is meant by rights, but also any objectivity or consistency. Original reporting from embassies has been removed, replaced with language clearly—and in a few cases ludicrously—manipulated by political appointees. This is very bad for human-rights defenders in places like Cuba or China, where activists in the past used U.S. language and reporting to make arguments to their own governments or to international institutions. From the May 2025 issue: America's future is Hungary None of them can now claim that the State Department Human Rights Report has any factual standing, or indeed that any U.S.-government document on human rights is an objective measure of anything. 'This essentially says the United States is no longer your ally, that the United States doesn't see clearly beyond the rhetoric of your regime,' one former official who still has relationships with DRL told me. 'And I think that's really, really tragic.' In truth, some of the changes seem designed not so much to shape U.S. foreign policy as to shape U.S. domestic policy. Christopher Le Mon, a former DRL official, told me he thinks that 'the domestic political agenda is really the organizing principle here.' He might be right. The administration is saying, after all, that it no longer finds electoral cheating or manipulation to be a problem; it doesn't think the harassment of civic groups is a bad thing; it doesn't object to discrimination against women or sexual minorities; and it will never demand transparency or accountability from the providers of internet algorithms, no matter what they choose to amplify or promote. The reports' authors, who include some of the most ideological people in the administration, are also telling Americans what they think of the standards that both Republicans and Democrats have held up for years. Now, says Le Mon, 'they're making it that much easier to just erase human rights from what has been a long-standing, relatively bipartisan history in U.S. foreign policy.' Ironically, this shift in American language puts the U.S. directly in alliance with China, whose diplomats have been campaigning for years to change the diplomatic discourse about human rights. Christopher Walker, a co-author of an influential paper on Chinese influence campaigns, which he calls 'sharp power,' told me that the Chinese Communist Party has been seeking to 'neuter or muddy the waters' around international discussions of fundamental human rights. 'From Beijing's point of view, the more such language is emasculated, the greater the CCP's competitive advantage,' he said. Russians, North Koreans, Iranians, Cubans, and others will also find this shift an immense relief. We knew this was coming. In a speech in Riyadh earlier this year, Trump flagged America's new indifference to human rights, promising the Saudis and other Middle Eastern monarchs that America would stop 'giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs.' That made it sound like the administration would be somehow neutral. But as Walker pointed out, in a world of intense ideological competition, there is no such thing as neutrality. Debates about the definition of human rights will continue. The U.S. will simply play a different role in them. Tom Malinowski, a former congressman who once ran the DRL bureau, puts it best. The reports, he told me, show that the 'U.S. still has a values-based foreign policy, but with twisted values.' Americans are giving plenty of lectures to other people on how to live, but to different people and with a different result.
