Bill Overview
Title: STOP Fraud Act
Description: This bill addresses issues of fraud and improper payments, including by establishing the Federal Real Antifraud Unified Directorate within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The bill requires agencies to designate any program exceeding certain payments thresholds as a program susceptible to significant improper payments and to implement proactive analytics for a high-risk area of each designated program. The OMB must designate any program with outlays equal to or in excess of $50 billion with respect to the preceding fiscal year as a high-priority program. An agency administering a high-priority program must develop a plan to implement anti-fraud controls that include digital identity-proofing solutions, threat intelligence, and proactive analytics. Such plan must take into consideration the administrative burden of implementing such anti-fraud controls. The bill establishes in the Treasury a Program Integrity Fund. The bill modifies improper payments provisions, including by requiring compliance reports by inspectors general of executive agencies at least every three fiscal years (currently, annually).
Sponsors: Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]
Target Audience
Population: People interacting with significant federal expenditure programs susceptible to fraud
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill addresses issues of fraud and improper payments across federal programs.
- Programs with significant federal expenditures, specifically those exceeding $50 billion, are deemed high-priority and must develop controls to prevent fraud.
- The bill will affect any individual who interacts with, benefits from, or is a service provider for such federal programs.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to mitigate fraud in federal programs with significant financial outlays, which could potentially improve resource allocation and prevent misuse of funds.
- The policy impacts individuals directly interacting with high-priority federal programs, like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, and public assistance programs.
- Potential impacts on the population are varied: beneficiaries, government employees, and service providers may all be affected differently.
- Most individuals may experience low to medium impact if they are indirectly involved in the system, whereas direct beneficiaries of large federal programs might see a more pronounced impact.
- Budget constraints limit program deployment and surveillance scope, likely leading to a prioritized implementation in the most fraud-prone segments first.
- While some individuals may worry about administrative overheads and data privacy, others may feel reassured by increased fraud prevention and the security of public funds.
Simulated Interviews
Social Security Benefits Recipient (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy will make the process smoother and reduce fraud, but I worry about additional paperwork.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Unemployment Insurance Claimant (Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned that increased verification process might delay needed funds.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Medicare Beneficiary (Florida)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy safeguards Medicare, it's good, but I hope it doesn't lead to service cuts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Government Employee (New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could increase my workload, but it's necessary to prevent fraud.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Data Analyst (Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy will lead to better use of data analytics to prevent fraud.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Medicaid Service Provider (Ohio)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential for payment delays worries me, but reducing fraud is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
IT Specialist (Nevada)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an opportunity for growth in digital security fields.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Veteran Affairs Beneficiary (Arizona)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancing the integrity of veteran benefits is necessary, but I hope it doesn't add complexity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Student Loan Recipient (Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased fraud detection might protect loans, but I hope it doesn't complicate the process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Federal Inspector General (Washington)
Age: 68 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change is timely. It will aid in identifying and rectifying systemic fraud.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $225000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $270000000)
Year 3: $225000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $270000000)
Year 5: $200000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $240000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- The establishment of a Federal Real Antifraud Unified Directorate will centralize fraud prevention strategies across federal programs.
- The mandatory designation of high-priority programs aims to optimize the allocation of anti-fraud resources.
- Establishing the Treasury's Program Integrity Fund indicates intent to sustain ongoing savings and reinvestment in program integrity measures.