May 23, 2012

Government Accountability Office "GAO": Almost A Tenth of Medicare Spending was Improper

An estimated $48 billion went to improper Medicare payments last year, out of the $509 billion spent on health care for elderly and disabled patients, an audit shows.

Medicare’s susceptibility to fraud, coupled with its size and complexity, has helped keep it on the GAO’s high-risk list since 1990. 

The GAO has repeatedly requested that Medicare make a number of changes, and while some progress has been made, the agency has significant challenges to overcome. “Medicare remains on a path that is fiscally unsustainable,” warned Kathleen King, health care director at GAO.

The wrongful payment estimate does not even include Medicare Part D, the prescription benefit plan, which is expected to have significant improper expenses. The GAO found CMS oversight of Part D to be insufficient at deterring fraud and abuse.

Among the other criticisms in the GAO analysis, Medicare still has not finished an investigation from 2007 on over $700 million in payments. The agency developed a recovery audit program to analyze paid claims, identify overpayments, and tighten provider enrollment. But Medicare still has not developed a process to take corrective actions for vulnerabilities identified by the program.

Home oxygen payments were another source of waste. If Medicare had used the most affordable private insurer, it could have saved $670 million of the estimated $2.15 billion it spent on home oxygen refills. Medicare automatically pays for oxygen refills, even though not all oxygen equipment requires refills.

“CMS needs a plan with clear measures and benchmarks for reducing Medicare’s risks for improper payments, inefficient payment methods, and issues in program management,” the report said.

FAST FACT: Medicare is attempting to improve feedback with doctors. Up to 90 percent of health care spending is attributed to a physician’s influence on medical services.

Following are other new watchdog reports released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), various federal Offices of Inspector General (OIG), and other government entities.

NATIONAL SECURITY

  • The Department of Homeland Security reduced its use of noncompetitive contracts last year, but not all contracts contained evidence of planning, analysis of vendor performance, and other requirements when not utilizing a competitive bidding process. The department obligated $1.3 billion last year for noncompetitive contracts. (OIG DHS)

MISC.

  • The Tuition Assistance Program run by the Pentagon does not provide oversight of schools receiving funds, and does not consult accrediting agencies or the Department of Education’s monitoring. Last year, the program provided $531 million to approximately 302,000 service members. (GAO)
Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Laurel Adams graduated cum laude from the University of Delaware in May of 2010 with majors in international relations, Spanish, and Latin American studies. She interned at Voices Without Borders in Wilmington, Del., and the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. While at the University of Delaware, Adams studied abroad in Argentina, helped start a Spanish conversation club, and served as an editor for the Sigma Iota Rho Journal of International Relations.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.