State Survey Analysis Report

Download this document in Word (1,076 KB) or PDF (1.28 MB)

Maintaining Data on Fraudulent Payments

19. Does your agency maintain data on fraudulent payments in the program as a subset of your improper payments data?

As shown in Exhibit 19 below, 11 State agencies report that they maintain data on fraudulent payments and provide data for the past two most recent fiscal years (CT, GA, KS, KY, MN, NE, NH, OH, PR, UT, WI). Eight State agencies provide narrative descriptions and indicate the effectiveness of methods used to detect fraudulent payments (CT, KS, KY, MN, NE, NH, OH, UT). Methods considered most effective include: case worker/supervisor reviews, investigations of problematic cases, agency or parent/provider referral, provider audits and computer database matching reports. (See Appendix 19 for detailed State responses.)

Twelve State agencies report that they do not maintain this data (AL, AZ, CA(DE), CA(DSS), DC, MD, MA, MI, MT, NC, WA, WV); however, five of these State agencies identify other entities that maintain information on fraudulent payments (AZ, CA(DSS), MD, MA, MS).

Measures Taken to Prevent Collusion >>