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
July 22, 2026
The Real Cost of Fraud

The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407

Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.

After ...

00:12:33
July 20, 2026
Search Warrant Produces Evidence of Insurance Fraud

Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397

Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX

Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.

In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”

As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.

LAW:

The ...

00:08:22
July 17, 2026
The Great Jewel Theft

Fraud Shouldn’t Pay

Post 5396

See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA

This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.

The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.

One month after the policy was ...

00:09:42
9 hours ago
Plaintiff Sues Because State Employees Stigmatized Her

Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State

Post 5421

Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma

First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial

In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.

She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...

post photo preview
August 05, 2026
It Doesn’t Pay to Lie in an Application for Insurance

Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418

Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma

An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.

In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:

A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...

post photo preview
August 05, 2026
It Doesn’t Pay to Lie in an Application for Insurance

Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418

Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma

An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.

In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.

LAW:

A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

As a result, the...

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