Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
April 12, 2022
Medicaid Paid Benefits to the Dead: Incompetence or Fraud or Both

True Crime of Insurance Fraud Video Number 53

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/true-crime-insurance-fraud-video-number-53-barry-zalma-esq-cfe and see the full video at https://rumble.com/v10mpod-true-crime-of-insurance-fraud-video-number-53.html and at

and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4150 posts.

Posted on April 12, 2022 by Barry Zalma
Share
Medicaid Paid Benefits to the Dead: Incompetence or Fraud or Both

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v10mpod-true-crime-of-insurance-fraud-video-number-53.html and at
INDIANA

The state of Indiana paid some $1.1 million in Medicaid-related payments in 2016 and 2017 to managed-care organizations (MCO) on behalf of beneficiaries who were dead, according to federal auditors reported by the United States Department of Justice.

The audit, carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) and released on February 13, 2020 revealed that in a random sample of 100 so-called capitation disbursements made to MCOs, the state of Indiana “made 95 unallowable payments.”

The Office of the Attorney General found:

Indiana made capitation payments on behalf of deceased beneficiaries. We confirmed that 70of the 71beneficiaries associated with the 100 capitation payments in our stratified random sample were deceased. Of the 100 capitation payments, Indiana made 95 unallowable payments totalling $79,403 ($58,773 Federal share). On the basis of our sample results, we estimated that Indiana made payments totalling at least $1.1 million ($862,097 Federal share) to MCOs on behalf of deceased beneficiaries during our audit period.

Indiana did not always fully process Medicaid beneficiaries’ death information in the MMIS. Although the State agency’s eligibility systems interfaced with Federal and State data exchanges that identify dates of death, the State agency did not enter the dates of death in the MMIS for 48 of our sampled beneficiaries. Additionally, the State agency did not recover the capitation payments for 22 sampled beneficiaries that did have a date of death in the MMIS.

The organizations that received the unlawful payments are part of the Medicaid Managed Care health care delivery system.

Medicaid agencies and managed care organizations (MCOs) that accept a set per member per month (capitation) payment for these services,” the Medicaid program site states. MCOs use capitation payments to manage health care costs, utilization, and quality.

The OIG concluded that the State agency made capitation payments on behalf of deceased beneficiaries. OIG confirmed that 70 of 71 beneficiaries associated with the 100 capitation payments in our sample were deceased. Of the 100 capitation payments, the State agency made 95 unallowable payments totalling $79,403 ($58,773 Federal share).

The State agency did not recover any of the 95 sampled capitation payments. On the basis of the sample results, the DOJ estimated that the State agency made payments totalling at least $1.1 million10($862,097 Federal share) to MCOs on behalf of deceased beneficiaries for service dates during the audit period.

Yet aspects of the system have been plagued by problems, with the Indiana report coming on the heels of others that similarly found that some states had improperly paid capitation payments on behalf of the deceased.

Similarly, an audit released in September 2019 found that Illinois paid an estimated $4.6 million to MCOs to cover deceased Medicaid beneficiaries. Illinois Medicaid administrator Doug Elwell acknowledged the findings in a written response to the audit and said state authorities would try to recover the improper payments and refund them to the federal government.

Similarly, Indiana Medicaid Director Allison Taylor said in a written response included in the audit that the state agrees with the conclusions of the report and will seek to recoup the payments.

There are more than 71 million people currently covered under Medicaid, the social safety net program created five decades ago and expanded by President Barack Obama through the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. The Trump administration has sought to reform the system, recently announcing that it would test letting state Medicaid programs limit health benefits and prescription drug coverage for some patients in return for changing how federal government contributions to the states are made.
The Failure of the State Agency

The contracts between the State agency and the MCOs required compliance with the provisions in Indiana’s Hoosier Healthwise and Healthy Indiana Plan MCE Policies and Procedures Manual, which states that beneficiaries’ enrolment will be terminated upon death and that payments to the MCO will be adjusted for retroactive disenrollment of the beneficiaries.

The State agency did not always process Medicaid beneficiaries’ death information or recover capitation payments in the MMIS. When the State agency properly processes death information, the MMIS uses that information to identify a beneficiary as deceased, stop future capitation payments, and initiate the recovery process for capitation payments that were made after the beneficiary’s month of death.
What OIG Recommended

The Office of the Attorney General recommended that Indiana:

refund $862,097 to the Federal Government;

identify and recover unallowable payments made to MCOs during our audit period on behalf of deceased beneficiaries, which we estimate to be at least $1.1 million;

identify capitation payments made on behalf of deceased beneficiaries before and after our audit period, and repay the Federal share of amounts recovered; and

ensure that dates of death are added to the MMIS and that capitation payments made after the beneficiaries’ deaths are recovered

Unallowable Payments for Beneficiaries Who Had a Date of Death

Dates of death were recorded in the MMIS for 22 of the 70 deceased beneficiaries. Nevertheless, the State agency made unallowable payments on behalf of these deceased beneficiaries. The State agency stated that it would conduct further research to determine why it did not recover the 27 capitation payments for these beneficiaries.
Michigan

The OIG estimated that Michigan made unallowable capitation payments totalling at least $39.9 million ($27.5 million Federal share) to managed care entities on behalf of deceased beneficiaries during our audit period. Of the 100 capitation payments in the stratified random sample, Michigan made 99 unallowable payments totalling $117,746 ($79,348 Federal share).

The unallowable payments occurred because Michigan did not always identify and process Medicaid beneficiaries’ death information. Although Michigan’s MMIS and eligibility systems interfaced with State and Federal death files that identify dates of death, Michigan did not always identify those dates of death in its MMIS system, and the MMIS system and eligibility system did not share dates of death information with each other. Michigan also did not recover payments caused by dates of death not promptly identified in its MMIS system.

OIG recommended that Michigan (1) refund $27.5 million to the Federal Government; (2) identify and recover unallowable payments made to managed care entities during our audit period on behalf of deceased beneficiaries, which OIG estimated to be at least $39.9 million; and (3) identify capitation payments made on behalf of deceased beneficiaries before and after the audit period and repay the Federal share of amounts recovered.

(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].

Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.local.com/subscribe.

Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.

Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.

Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE presents videos so you can learn how insurance fraud is perpetrated and what is necessary to deter or defeat insurance fraud.

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
May 26, 2026
He Who Acts as His Own Lawyer Has an Idiot for a Client

Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief

Post number 5357

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.

Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed

In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.

FACTS

Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...

00:08:55
placeholder
May 11, 2026
Severe Punishment for Failure to Obey Court Orders

Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders

All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.

Post number 5348

See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.

In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...

00:08:27
placeholder
May 08, 2026
Ambiguous Contract to Repair not an Assignment

The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims

Post number 5347

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer

In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In ...

00:08:02
July 03, 2026
Buying Insurance After the Accident is Fraud

It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception

Post number 5386

Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming

In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.

That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.

The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...

post photo preview
July 02, 2026
Failure to Comply With Policy Conditions Defeats Claim

Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing

Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Post number 5385

No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim

In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.

After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.

LAW:

Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...

post photo preview
July 02, 2026
Failure to Comply With Policy Conditions Defeats Claim

Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing

Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Post number 5385

No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim

In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.

After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.

LAW:

Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals