Bill Overview
Title: Preventing Improper Payments Act
Description: This bill designates any program or activity making more than $100 million in payments in a fiscal year as susceptible to significant improper payments. Under current law, programs designated as susceptible to significant improper payments are subject to additional assessments and reporting requirements. The bill requires each agency to submit to Congress, as part of the annual financial report of the agency, a report on implementing financial and administrative controls and certain other practices with respect to fraud risk; identifying risks and vulnerabilities to fraud; and establishing strategies, procedures, and other steps to curb fraud.
Sponsors: Rep. Spanberger, Abigail Davis [D-VA-7]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on large government programs for financial support
Estimated Size: 110000000
- The bill targets programs and activities that make significant payments, over $100 million, which could be prone to improper payments.
- Improper payments often occur in large government programs that provide financial assistance or benefits to the public.
- Programs susceptible to improper payments include social security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, and other federal aid programs.
- Reductions in improper payments would impact individuals who are either erroneously receiving excess funds or not receiving due payments due to errors.
- Ensuring proper payment allocation affects individuals dependent on these programs for financial support.
Reasoning
- The Preventing Improper Payments Act targets $100 million+ government programs that have a high risk of improper payments, impacting primarily those who receive government aid like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment benefits.
- It aims to reduce errors in payments, ensuring those who are supposed to receive benefits get them accurately, while reducing fraudulent claims.
- The policy budget constraints mean implementation may initially focus on larger, more easily monitored programs, limiting the diversity of impact across smaller or less obvious programs.
- While some individuals may experience improved financial accuracy in receiving benefits, others may experience delays or additional scrutiny in their applications or payments.
- The policy is likely to have a medium to low impact on individual wellbeing initially, as systemic changes in large organizations can take time to be fully realized.
Simulated Interviews
Retired (Florida)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy makes Social Security more reliable.
- I worry fraud detection might delay important Medicare claims.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Unemployed (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving payment accuracy sounds good, but I need my unemployment benefits now, not later.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Healthcare Worker (New York)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fraud prevention is good, but I hope it doesn't mean more bureaucracy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Veteran (California)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this reduces improper payments to false claims, so vets like me get what we need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Freelance Artist (Oregon)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing fraud sounds like cutting benefits with extra hurdles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
School Teacher (Michigan)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring funds go to legitimate claims is critical.
- I worry it might tighten access to my disability benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student (Illinois)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring grant money is properly spent can support more students.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More accountability means fewer improper payments contracting-wise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Warehouse Worker (Georgia)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean stricter checks, affecting my family's tax benefits.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Non-profit Worker (North Carolina)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could prevent housing assistance fraud, which is good for valid claimants.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost of implementing the program is relatively small compared to the potential savings from reduced improper payments.
- Success depends greatly on the effective implementation, compliance by federal agencies, and the adaptability of involved personnel and systems.
- Future improvements in technology could further reduce costs and improve detection of improper payments.