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: Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]
Target Audience
Population: People who received pandemic unemployment assistance
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill targets fraud and overpayments related to pandemic unemployment assistance, which would predominantly affect those individuals who received this type of benefit.
- Pandemic unemployment assistance was a significant part of the relief efforts in response to COVID-19, benefiting millions of people globally, especially within the United States where it was a federal program.
- Millions of people in the U.S. applied for unemployment benefits during the pandemic, thus this population includes both fraudulent claimants and individuals who may have received overpayments by mistake.
- The enforcement of this bill will involve people involved in state unemployment agencies, as they will be handling the recovery of funds and adjudicating fraud cases.
- If states are allowed to retain a percentage of recovered funds, this may have economic implications for state budgets and indirectly affect wider state populations.
- Globally, the direct impact would be less pronounced as this bill addresses U.S. unemployment assistance specifically.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals who received pandemic unemployment assistance. Fraudulent claimants and those who erroneously received overpayments will be the most directly affected.
- Unemployment agencies within states will play a crucial role in identifying and reclaiming overpayments, possibly shifting internal resources to support these efforts.
- Individuals who committed fraud may face legal repercussions, while those who received overpayments in error may experience financial strain when required to repay.
- The policy may bolster state budgets by allowing them to retain a percentage of recovered funds, indirectly affecting residents through potential budget reallocations.
- Despite the potential stress on those directly impacted, reclaiming misallocated funds could provide broader societal benefits by supporting state programs or reducing debts.
- A significant portion of the population, specifically targeting 20 million Americans according to the target estimate, were beneficiaries of some form of unemployment support during the pandemic.
Simulated Interviews
Retail Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I relied heavily on the unemployment assistance during the pandemic.
- It's unfair to penalize those of us who were overpaid due to errors.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wasn't involved with unemployment benefits, so this policy doesn't affect me directly.
- It's probably a good idea to recover funds that were wrongly distributed.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Construction Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I didn't realize I was overpaid until now, it's stressful thinking I have to pay back.
- This policy could cause financial trouble for people like me who are financially recovering.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Freelancer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If I were overpaid, I didn't know. This feels like a looming threat to my finances.
- Policies like these make me anxious—what if they made a mistake? I don't have savings to cover repayments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was only overpaid a small amount but having to pay back when business is slow is tough.
- The system errors weren't our fault; states should focus on fixing these issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 62 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad there's a focus on fraud, as funds should go to those truly in need.
- I worry about the bureaucracy and the impact it has on honest errors versus intentional fraud.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
College Student (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I depended on that money for rent and tuition, but I don't want to be in debt either.
- If they overpaid me, I want to settle it fairly, without penalty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Healthcare Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I watched colleagues deal with overpayment issues—it’s awful they have to repay during a crisis.
- The system needs comprehensive support overhaul to prevent future spillover.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Entrepreneur (Denver, CO)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was meticulous about my unemployment claims and worry less about repercussions, but there's always fear they might 'find' something.
- Those who exploited the system should rightfully repay, though.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Accountant (Boston, MA)
Age: 57 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring taxpayers' money is used wisely is crucial, these funds were meant for emergencies.
- It's important not to entangle the honest while pursuing fraudulent claimants.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $135000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $180000000)
Year 3: $120000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $140000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $75000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- Cost of implementing fraud detection and fund recovery mechanisms could escalate if substantial process improvements are needed.
- Collaborative efforts with states to optimize fund recovery while navigating legal and ethical considerations of individual cases.
- Consideration of how recovered funds allocated as state retention are used within state budgets to support economic stabilization.