Bill Overview
Title: Chase COVID Unemployment Fraud Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses fraud and overpayments of pandemic unemployment assistance, including by allowing states to retain a specified percentage of recovered funds and prohibiting the Department of Labor from allowing blanket waivers of overpayments.
Sponsors: Rep. Brady, Kevin [R-TX-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved with pandemic unemployment assistance fraud or overpayment recovery
Estimated Size: 4000000
- The bill is focused on pandemic unemployment assistance programs, which have global analogs but are particularly relevant to countries with significant public unemployment schemes like the US.
- Fraudulent recipients of pandemic unemployment benefits will be directly impacted as the measures will aim to identify and prosecute fraud cases.
- Individuals who received overpayments from pandemic unemployment assistance, whether fraudulently or through administrative errors, will be significantly affected.
- State governments will benefit from the retention of a percentage of recovered funds, impacting budgeting and spending plans for those funds.
- The scale of unemployment assistance fraud and overpayment systemically involves numerous claimants, some of whom may be innocent recipients of overpayments due to errors.
Reasoning
- The policy targets individuals who have either committed fraud or received overpayments within the pandemic unemployment assistance program.
- Impact varies widely based on the involvement, from intentional fraudsters to innocent overpayment recipients, affecting their financial and legal standing.
- Many individuals potentially touched by this policy may feel stress or anxiety due to new financial obligations or legal ramifications, influencing their self-reported wellbeing.
- State governments' retention of recovered funds may create positive indirect impacts, like improved local services, benefitting citizens indirectly.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Manager (Detroit, MI)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I did everything by the book, but now they're saying I owe money back? It's stressful.
- I think it's good to catch actual fraudsters, but there should be leniency for errors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
IT Specialist (San Diego, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If I'm harassed for money I don't owe, it will be very unsettling.
- The focus should be on identifying real fraud, not punishing innocent mistakes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Freelancer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These types of checks are nerve-racking, just hoping I didn't make any mistakes.
- Clarity and transparency will be key in implementing this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Restaurant Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The idea of repayments is daunting—they need to consider business owners hit hard by this.
- It's important fraud is found, but they need a fair system for overpayment issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Construction Worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This whole thing feels like you're guilty until proven innocent, very stressful.
- I hope they'll provide support for those genuinely in unclear situations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Accountant (New York City, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Glad I wasn't involved, but worried about the potential tax increases from such policies.
- Important to recover funds, but the process should be efficient and less intrusive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Barista (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's really anxiety-inducing to think that somehow I might have to pay back money I needed then.
- The policy should be clear and not punitive for mistakes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Retired (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's unsettling to think you might be pulled into this without actual error on your part.
- Recovery of funds is logical, but it requires careful handling not to harm innocents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Small Business Consultant (Boston, MA)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not directly involved but concerned about future business impacts from such policy actions.
- Recovering funds is necessary to prevent future issues, but it shouldn't strain current businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Event Planner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A bit worried about any implications due to policy changes.
- Finding actual fraudulent claims makes sense, but they should be aware of how challenging this was for everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $60000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $80000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- The scale of benefit overpayments or fraud is substantial but challenging to precisely estimate during the pandemic due to the emergency nature of the rollouts.
- Enforcement measures won't be cost-neutral but serve an important corrective to resource allocation and fiscal responsibility.
- Potential for contentious public and media response regarding impact on individuals who received payments in error.