logo
Opinion - What to do about $1.1 trillion in improper Medicaid payments

Opinion - What to do about $1.1 trillion in improper Medicaid payments

Yahoo16-03-2025

As the 119th Congress seeks to reduce government spending through reconciliation, talk of Medicaid reductions has raised concerns about vulnerable populations losing Medicaid coverage. But simply following the law and paying only for what Medicaid allows would save hundreds of billions of dollars without ending coverage for any of Medicaid's intended recipients.
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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it
What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it

Business Insider

time25 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it

Elon Musk has departed his role as a "special government employee" in Trump's White House — and he's using his time outside the administration to hammer the GOP spending bill that's a cornerstone of the president's agenda. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote on X earlier this week. Trump responded by saying Musk's criticism of the legislation is "disappointing." President Trump's tax bill will likely face a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks after passing the House in May. It would reduce the tax rates of lower-income workers, particularly those earning less than $107,200, and eliminate taxes on tips, social security, and overtime. The bill would also cut spending on social programs like Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to low-income Americans. Like Musk, investors and economists are seemingly concerned that the bill will cause the national debt to balloon and further widen the US budget deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that it would grow the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade . Trump and his allies have pushed back, arguing that higher economic growth from lower taxes would help boost government revenue. Here's what top economists are saying about the bill. Phillip L. Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office Despite the lower tax rates for low earners, Swagel said in a May 20 letter that the bill would negatively impact poorer Americans. "CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP," he wrote. "By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe." William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation McBride, along with several colleagues at the non-partisan Tax Foundation think tank, said in a May 23 report that while the bill would support economic growth, it wouldn't be enough to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts. "Our preliminary analysis finds the tax provisions included in the House-passed bill would increase long-run GDP by 0.8 percent," the report said. "The bill's tax and spending changes would increase the 10-year budget deficit by $2.6 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the deficit would increase by $1.7 trillion over ten years before interest costs." It continued: "The bill's tax provisions alone would reduce federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the revenue reduction would fall by nearly 22 percent to $3.2 trillion over 10 years before added interest costs." 6 Nobel Laureates Six Nobel Prize-winning economists — including Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Peter Diamond, Paul Krugman, Oliver Hart, and Joseph Stiglitz — said in a June 2 letter that the bill would worsen wealth inequality in the US. "The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households," the letter said. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them," it added. Ken Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, cast doubt on the notion that the bill would boost growth in a piece for Project Syndicate this week. "Trump and his acolytes argue that his "big, beautiful bill" will supercharge economic growth, generating enough revenue to make up for sweeping tax cuts. But history offers little support for such claims," he wrote. "While both Democratic-led spending sprees and Republican-backed tax cuts have fueled the growth of US debt over the past two decades, tax reductions have accounted for the lion's share of the increase. Moreover, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves was already discredited in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts led to soaring deficits rather than self-sustaining growth." He added: "Will America's rising debt ultimately trigger a full-blown crisis? Perhaps, but a continued upward drift in long-term interest rates is more likely." Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Lachman, a former IMF official who currently works for a conservative-leaning think tank, said in a June 4 post that rising bond yields, a declining dollar, and appreciating gold prices could be harbingers of an economic crisis brought on by Trump-driven policy volatility. Trump's tax bill is adding to investors' fears due to its inflationary implications. But one of its clauses undermines confidence in the reliability of the returns on Treasurys, he said. "That bill includes a clause that has to be sending shivers down foreign investors' spines. According to Section 899, the US Treasury can impose additional taxes of up to 20 percent on income earned by foreign entities from countries that enact taxes deemed 'unfair' to US interests."

Trump's autopen fixation, explained
Trump's autopen fixation, explained

CNN

time27 minutes ago

  • CNN

Trump's autopen fixation, explained

President Donald Trump first focused on Joe Biden's use of the autopen in March, leaning into the idea that the former president's use of the tool to sign documents showed that he wasn't in charge while in the White House and that his actions were 'null and void.' At the time, conservative executive authority scholar John Yoo wagered to CNN that Trump was 'just having fun at Biden's expense.' Trump on Wednesday sought to take this outside the realm of mere 'fun.' He ordered an investigation of Biden's use of the autopen and its supposed links to Biden's 'cognitive decline.' The move is guaranteed to breathe even more life into a story that has proven to be catnip for conservative media eager to keep the focus on the alleged coverup of Biden's decline. And Trump has certainly shown a talent for seeding baseless conspiracy theories for political gain (see: birtherism and the false notion that the 2020 election was rigged, among them.) But it's difficult to see how this leads anywhere, for a few reasons. The first is that there is nothing evidently wrong or unlawful about using the autopen. In 2005, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (under Republican President George W. Bush) conducted an extensive review of the legality of a president using the autopen. It found that 'the President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill to sign it within the meaning of Article I, Section 7.' Trump has most often focused his autopen theory on Biden's pardons. (The idea that these are invalid would ostensibly allow Trump's Justice Department to investigate and charge the people Biden preemptively pardoned.) But there too, established legal advice from past administrations undermines the claim. A 1929 memo from the US solicitor general noted that the Constitution didn't even prescribe a method for issuing pardons. That means they don't necessarily even need to be publicly documented. (You might have heard in recent years about the prospect of 'secret' pardons.) And the memo explicitly says that pardons 'need not have the president's autograph.' The other key point is that many presidents have used this practice in one form or another. Thomas Jefferson bought and used such a machine back when it was first patented in 1803, according to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation. And even Trump himself has acknowledged using the autopen for certain things. Trump said back in March he has used it but 'only for very unimportant papers.' He specifically cited responding to people's letters. But in another case, Trump rather curiously seemed to indicate that he hadn't signed a major proclamation that bore his signature – the one at issue in his attempt to rapidly deport migrants using the Alien Enemies Act. That proclamation is a major issue in litigation that has already reached all the way to the Supreme Court. 'I don't know when it was signed, because I didn't sign it,' Trump said, adding: 'Other people handled it, but (Secretary of State) Marco Rubio has done a great job and he wanted them out and we go along with that.' Given the proclamation bore Trump's signature, that seemed to raise the possibility that the administration might have used the autopen for it. The White House later claimed Trump had in fact signed the proclamation and that he was instead referring to not having signed the original Alien Enemies Act. (But that argument strained credulity, given Trump cited how 'other people handled it' and the fact that the Alien Enemies Act dates to 1798. That means there is no way anyone could ever believe Trump might have signed it. The question Trump responded to also specifically referenced the proclamation, not the 1798 law.) In another way, Trump's Wednesday night memorandum isn't really about the autopen. It's about using that as a shorthand for something else entirely: what the memo calls Biden's 'cognitive decline.' Trump's order isn't just about reviewing whether any autopen signatures used by Biden were lawful; it also cites the idea that people used it as part of an effort to 'unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President.' 'I'm sure that he didn't know many of the things – look, he was never for open borders, he was never for transgender for everybody, he was never for men playing in women's sports. All of these things that changed so radically, I don't think he had any idea … what was going on,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday. 'Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president.' This theory – if ever somehow proven – would actually matter. The 2005 Bush Justice Department memo, for instance, made clear that while presidents could outsource the signing of documents, that doesn't mean they could necessarily outsource the decisions to sign the documents. The OLC memo emphasizes that 'we do not question the substantial authority supporting the view that the President must personally decide whether to approve and sign bills.' But however compelling the evidence that Biden administration officials covered up his decline, there remains no evidence that he wasn't actually making decisions to sign things. That's taking things to an entirely different level. Biden's advisers have denied any coordinated effort to conceal from the public his deteriorating condition during the final years of his presidency. And the 2005 DOJ memo suggests it would have to prove more than just that Biden wasn't particularly engaged, but that he didn't make the final decisions. Trump was asked Thursday if he had uncovered 'anything specific' that was signed without Biden's knowledge or by people in his administration who acted illegally. Trump said, 'No.' Biden, for his part, issued some strong statements late Wednesday. 'I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations,' the former president said. 'Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false.' The former president also called this 'nothing more than a distraction' to obscure Republicans' push for a dicey Trump agenda bill, which features Medicaid cuts in the House-passed version. The Congressional Budget Office estimated Wednesday that this could lead to millions of people losing their health insurance. Indeed, the political utility of the theory underlying Trump's memo is readily apparent. It's wildly popular in conservative media, with Fox News already devoting dozens of stories and extensive coverage to it. That includes this week when other outlets were focused on a decidedly less helpful story for the Trump administration: Elon Musk bashing the president's domestic policy bill. It's also nearly impossible to disprove it. History suggests that arriving at actual proof of Trump's theory is often besides the point for Trump. It's about repetition and seeding doubt. And Wednesday's action is clearly in line with that history.

Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani's posture reveals how Dems really felt during tense NYC mayoral debate showdown: experts
Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani's posture reveals how Dems really felt during tense NYC mayoral debate showdown: experts

New York Post

time27 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani's posture reveals how Dems really felt during tense NYC mayoral debate showdown: experts

Ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo dodging an onslaught of jabs and socialist state Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani trying to snag a viral breakout moment were among the standouts from New York City's mayoral Democratic primary debate. Body language experts weighed in after the Democratic candidates sparred against each other Wednesday in the first debate of the 2025 primary election — as they jostled to outshine in each other in an already overcrowded race. Here's what they had to say of the top moments: Advertisement 5 The Democratic candidates for New York City mayor participating in a debate on June 4, 2025. Pool/ABACA/Shutterstock A rapidly blinking Cuomo Despite being the front-runner, Cuomo's body language clearly shifted as the NBC-Politico debate wore on as he was relentlessly attacked by his fellow candidates over more than two hours. The former governor, 67, dramatically increased his blinking when peppered with questions about his handling of COVID nursing home deaths and the sexual harassment scandal that led to his resignation, according to Washington DC-based body language expert Christopher Ulrich. Advertisement 'Initially confident and expressive, Cuomo's posture changed over time — particularly when he was under attack,' Ulrich said. 5 Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo looked uncomfortable as the attacks from other candidates continued, body language experts told The Post. 'We also saw an increase in blink rate when asked questions about COVID-19 nursing home deaths and sexual harassment.' The behavior, the expert noted, was a clear sign of 'increased psychological discomfort.' Hand in his pocket Advertisement Cuomo was also repeatedly spotted with his hand in his pocket as the going got tough, according to experts. 'While under verbal attack from the rest of the candidates, we see Cuomo keep his hand in his pocket, a self-soothing or protective gesture that often signals discomfort,' Ulrich said. At various points, Cuomo could be seen staring down at his podium as the attacks continued. 5 Cuomo kept on putting his hand in his pocket throughout the debate. NBC / YouTube Advertisement 'These unrelenting jabs, that obviously hit his sore spots, ultimately resulted in Cuomo looking down at his podium more than he looked up at the other candidates, the hosts or the camera,' brain and body language expert and psychiatrist Carole Lieberman said. 'To remove himself from the hostility directed at him, he began writing something and concentrated on it, so as not to be disturbed.' In search of a viral moment Mamdani, the 33-year-old socialist Queens Assemblyman, repeatedly used wild hand gestures in an apparent bid to steal the spotlight from Cuomo, the experts said. '[He] employed numerous attacks, including references to Cuomo's donors and the COVID report, to try to contrast and achieve one of those viral moments,' Ulrich said, adding that he often gestured toward Cuomo when delivering the attacks. 5 Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani used wild hand gestures to stand out during his clashes with Cuomo, experts say. Lieberman noted that Mamdani — who has zeroed in on young, white, ultra-left New Yorkers during his campaign — often used 'sensational, dramatic language' on stage at 30 Rockefeller Center. 'He is the wild card in the race, as his hand gestures, pointing in all directions, underscored,' she said. 'He was the most animated and determined to outshine Cuomo.' A statesmanlike performance A fired up Rev. Michael Blake came off as 'very stately' — even as the former Obama administration official consistently hammered Cuomo on stage, Lieberman said. Advertisement Ulrich added that Blake, a former Bronx Assembly member, tried to command attention with his Cuomo onslaught. 5 Rev. Michael Blake appeared 'stately' as he stood up to Cuomo. 'Mr. Blake stood out in some of the key moments by demanding Cuomo clarify several of his answers,' he said. 'Reporters often picked up on those demands and would repeat Blakes's clarifying questions. 'By interjecting assertively and keeping others quiet, Blake commanded attention. This approach mirrored techniques used by Trump in the 2016 Republican primary debates,' Ulrich said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store