Examining examinations under oath

Ill-conceived Wash. bill would harm fraud fight, consumers Continue reading

A valued and effective anti-fraud tool that benefits consumers would be hobbled under a misguided bill in Washington State. It’s called the examination under oath, or EUO.

Insurers interview claimants, who are legally bound to answer questions truthfully. Thoughtful questioning by trained investigators can expose lies and mistruths by claimants trying to hide suspected scams. Telltale clues often can be uncovered only by EUOs. This is why they’re crucial to exposing often well-hidden crimes.

Many fraudsters don’t even bother showing up for an EUO, which helps insurers halt suspected claim payments and close out bad claims.

Under the Washington bill, the statute of limitations for using EUOs would begin when a suspected scam happens, instead of when an insurer discovers it. This strict time limit imposes arbitrary legal handcuffs, regardless of the actual crime-fighting need.

The bill’s stated goal is to protect consumers from supposed insurer fishing expeditions — though where’s the proof of fishing trips? We’ve seen no evidence.

“This would set up a system where insurers would be forced to pay suspect claims before they could adequately decide whether the claim is legitimate,” the Coalition wrote the chair of a subcommittee that’s vetting the measure.

Insurers use EUOs judiciously, only when clear red flags of possible fraud are uncovered first. Companies have neither the time nor budgets to conduct large volumes of EUOs on all claims.

The Washington bill thus would backfire. Insurers would be forced to pay suspicious claims because they wouldn’t have time to fully investigate for warning signals. More bogus claims means more crime and higher premiums for honest insurance consumers in Washington.

If an insurer is abusing the privilege of compelling claimants to appear at EUOs to answer questions, regulators and existing law have existing remedies to punish them. Curtailing this important tool across the board is not in the best interest of public policy.

The Coalition will publish a white paper on EUOs later this year. We will shed more light on how EUOs work, and why we need them to work effectively as anti-fraud tools.

About the author: Howard Goldblatt is director of government affairs for the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.

Will election changes boost anti-fraud efforts?

States need to stop crash rings, contractors, health cons Continue reading

The late David Bowie sang about “ch-ch-ch-ch-changes” in his memorable rock song. This theme could define anti-fraud legislation in 2017.

A new year always brings aspirations for success. Same with fraud fighters seeking new state laws clamping down on insurance swindlers.

Several statehouses are opening this week, and anti-fraud bills already are being docketed for debate. All amid many ch-ch-ch-ch-changes in leadership this big election year.

New state legislatures, governors and insurance commissioners have taken office. A new U.S. president and Congress could change the face of anti-fraud efforts. We’re watching closely for signals on how they’ll fund scam-busting programs for Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid.

The anti-fraud community needs to help policymakers see that their constituents benefit greatly from robust, well-funded anti-fraud efforts.

So here’s our bucket list for 2017:

  • Michigan finally creates a state insurance-fraud authority to go after widespread auto fraud rings in the state;
  • New York’s legislature sets aside turf wars to clamp down on staged-crash rings and shady contractors; and
  • Congress and the Administration properly fund the Healthcare Fraud Prevention Partnership. It has saved hundreds of millions of dollars by uncovering scams against private health insurers and taxpayer-funded health programs such as Medicare. And that’s just the beginning.

Other states will take up the call for stronger anti-fraud laws as well. The Coalition will work with our partners to get those laws onto the books.

We’re on board — will you be?

About the author: Howard Goldblatt is director of government affairs for the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.

Election fallout ripples through anti-fraud world

Changes at the state and federal levels could affect enforcement Continue reading

election-falloutWhile the shock of the national elections continues to be felt, the Coalition is sizing up the likely impact on fraud-fighting.

The biggest concern is whether the Trump administration will continue the federal government’s aggressive stand in combating healthcare fraud. FBI investigations and Department of Justice prosecutions have helped set records for arrests, convictions and financial recoveries in the last eight years.

Another potential concern is whether repealing the Affordable Care Act will gut anti-fraud programs that were part of the original bill. Medicare has much more capacity and authority to crackdown and prevent healthcare fraud today. Its ability to shut down scams quickly and use the latest technology such as predictive modeling could be in jeopardy.

Republicans also likely will push for interstate sales of health insurance. We’ve repeatedly warned that such an unregulated system will spur scam artists to sell fake policies to unsuspecting consumers.

Another potential casualty could be the Healthcare Fraud Prevention Partnership, an alliance of more than 60 private insurers and public agencies.

The partnership’s data-sharing program has helped save more than $260 million for healthcare payers. It would be foolish not to continue, but the program operates at the whim of the administration and HHS secretary. That’s one reason we advocated writing the program into federal law, but it’s too late for that now.

As for state elections, Wayne Goodwin, the insurance commissioner in North Carolina, lost his election. He’s a strong supporter of anti-fraud measures. Goodwin sponsors an effective fraud bureau, and chairs the NAIC Anti-Fraud Task Force.

The change of governors and insurance commissioners in other states, such as Delaware, also may affect law-enforcement efforts to combat fraud.

We’ll continue analyzing the federal and state results. We’ll report developments as they emerge. In the meantime, the Coalition stands ready to work with the new office holders to advocate strong measures that effectively combat insurance fraud.

About the author: Dennis Jay is executive director of the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.

Fraud fighters must get in legislative game

Play strong role in enacting stronger state fraud laws Continue reading

Two truths will govern our success in getting strong state fraud laws onto the books: We must prepare our 2017 legislative agenda now; waiting until December or January is too late. Fraud fighters also can play a pivotal role in getting fraud bills on the front burner in many states.

We’re in an election year, with less than 90 days until we vote for a new president and Congress. We’ll also vote for quite a few state legislators, and a handful of governors.

We tend to be Washington-centric, thinking that who we put into the White House and Congress will affect us the most.

Actually, most of us are directly affected more by what happens in our state capitals than in Washington. Fraud fighters thus should be alert to creating opportunities in our own backyards.

The Coalition is using the summer to plan the states where there’s the  strongest need for new fraud laws — and a solid chance we can get bills enacted into law.

The Coalition’s government affairs committee meets this week to discuss the best hotspot states. Later this month, I’ll be on a conference call with state IASIU chapters. We’ll discuss the grassroots role that fraud fighters can play in writing their legislators in key target states next year.

The best way to convince insurers to make anti-fraud bills a priority in a given state is to make a business case why statehouse efforts are in everyone’s best interests.

Let me know if you think your state is a prime candidate for strong fraud bills in 2017. Partnerships among fraud fighters and other allies give us the best chance of success.

Together, we can make a difference.

About the author: Howard Goldblatt is director of government affairs for the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.

Dodging auto premiums should be crime

Lying about garaging vehicles burdens honest drivers Continue reading

Summer driving season is in full swing. It’s a reminder that dishonest drivers are illicitly registering their vehicles in states where premiums are lower. The Coalition is calling for states to go after these drivers.

Using out-of-state addresses to insure a car illegally reduces the driver’s auto premiums. It also burden honest insurance consumers who insure their vehicles with their real address. They may pay higher auto premiums thanks to drivers who cheat the system.

North Carolina was the first state to tackle this issue by requiring new insureds to show proof of residence before an insurer could write a policy. Out-of-staters were registering their vehicles in North Carolina for the lower auto premiums.

North Carolina recently went a step further and put more teeth in the existing law. Trucking firms are falsely registering their fleets in the state yet have no operations there. The new law requires businesses to prove they ply the roads in the Tar Heel state.

Falsely registering vehicles in New Jersey is a specific insurance crime.

The Coalition seeks a similar law in New York. Bills have stalled, though we and our partners there are planning to reboot in 2017.

A Maryland bill would’ve let insurers rescind policies of drivers who falsely registered their vehicles in the state. The state held a public meeting. An insurer told about a claimed loss in Maryland by an insured who lived in New York — where the insurer doesn’t write coverage. The insurer paid the claim to avoid a baseless yet potentially costly bad-faith suit.

The statehouse will revisit legislation in 2017.

The Coalition strongly supports targeting auto rate evasion. Tough state laws can remove a driver’s incentive to take the risk.  Consumers who lie about where they drive to lower their auto premiums add burdens to the many thousands of honest drivers. This undermines the integrity of the auto-insurance system.

Fraud fighters have taken the forefront on this issue. Stay alert to auto-premium evasion in your state. Tell the Coalition and your state insurance department. Falsely registering a vehicle should be a ticket to jail, not an easy source of summer spending money.

About the author: Howard Goldblatt is director of government affairs for the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.

New fraud laws start with open dialogue

Md. public meeting helped focus on needed reforms Continue reading

Last week I took part in a public meeting the Maryland Insurance Administration held in Baltimore to review anti-frauds effort in the state. Part of the discussion surrounded anti-fraud bills that stalled this year when the 2016 session closed in mid-April.

The state insurance commissioner Al Redmer Jr. chaired the meeting. He stayed the entire time. He went beyond simply giving an opening statement, then handing the meeting to the fraud unit’s chief. Redmer’s lengthy presence showed a strong interest in strengthening state’s anti-fraud efforts.

I called for the state to redouble its efforts to target drivers who lie where they garage their cars to illicitly lower their auto premiums.

Maryland drivers should register and insure their vehicles in the state. Similarly, out-of-state drivers should pay a steep penalty for lying that they drive and garage their vehicles in Maryland to lower their auto premiums.

Maryland should be applauded for last week’s effort. The session started dialogue for targeting auto-premium evasion and other insurance crimes. This could spark renewed pushes for anti-fraud legislation next year. The 2017 legislative session opens in January.

Other states can learn from sessions like this one. A state’s anti-fraud effort is organic. Fraud fighters and the insurance department must continually review its direction and impact. No state should rest on its laurels, thinking it’s doing a great job. Nor should a state grow reluctant to act, believing the anti-fraud environment can’t be changed so why talk about it.

Maybe such a meeting in New York could help break up the logjam in Albany that has stalled so many worthwhile anti-fraud measures in recent years. Or, a state like Oregon which has no insurance fraud law or anti-fraud infrastructure. Imagine what the insurance departments and governors would learn if they held such meetings. Same with Michigan, which needs a fraud bureau.

More often than not, legislatures act in a vacuum when they look at anti-fraud laws. Too often they’re pulled in several directions, making it hard to focus on enacting anti-fraud laws.

Fraud fighters should assume leadership and start action-driven dialogue. Reach out to the state insurance department, insurance commissioner and state attorney general. Co-sponsor open meetings to review their state’s fraud trends, and where new fraud laws are needed.

These joint efforts can go a long way toward enacting needed laws and regulations that make a state’s anti-fraud efforts stronger than ever.

About the author: Howard Goldblatt is director of government affairs for the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.

Anti-fraud efforts removed from MLR

Keeping in MLR improves healthcare for everyone Continue reading

Health insurer anti-fraud expenses will be left from the Medical Loss Ratio  in a rule released by the feds. This decision deals with Medicaid managed care, and frustrated state and federal fraud busters. The impact will spread throughout the world of healthcare.

First, a short history: The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to spend 80 or 85 percent of costs on claims and health services. This limits how much insurers can spend to run the business.

Regulators were left to decide what insurer expenses will be included in the MLR. The Coalition and other fraud fighters diligently tried to show federal and state regulators why anti-fraud expenses should be included. Effective fraud fighting is directly linked to the quality of healthcare that consumers receive in many cases.

What makes this decision a bit grating is that federally funded health programs like Medicaid are required to have anti-fraud efforts. Yet those expenses are excluded from the MLR, and thus, health plans have little incentive to invest more in combating fraud.

This decision has impact well beyond state-federal Medicaid.

States usually look to the feds for guidance when writing their own regulations. If the feds exclude fraud expenses from the MLR, then states will be reluctant as well.

We’ve urged insurance regulators to include the MLR. They’re often sympathetic, yet gamely stick to excluding anti-fraud expenses.

Fraud fighting is essential to quality patient care; this isn’t mere overhead. Scams often harm patients with worthless and botched treatments that also can max out their policy limits. Stopping money-draining schemes also helps reduce the cost of health services. This benefits everyone.

That’s the rub. Fraud fighters know that good anti-fraud efforts reduce healthcare costs and improve services. Yet regulators stubbornly stay reluctant to even consider including anti-fraud expenses in the MRL.

It’s time for fraud fighters to speak out, and tell regulators and policymakers that fraud-fighting expense should be included in the cost of paying healthcare claims.

About the author: Howard Goldblatt is director of government affairs for the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.

Pay me now or …

Police are responding less and less to minor auto accidents Continue reading

If you crash cars for a living in New Orleans, your life may be getting a bit easier.

Thanks to a bill in the state legislature, police in the Crescent City may no longer be required to respond to fender benders. If you’re involved in a minor accident, just head over to your local police station, give them the details, and they’ll  hand you an accident report you can use to file your insurance claim.

Crashers will no longer need to  stage a collision. Just report it. How convenient.

The bill aims to relieve the cash-strapped city so police can focus more on violent and more-serious crimes. Responding to some 14,000 minor accidents each year is a drain on city resources, according to news reports.

That argument is hard to argue with. And it’s one that more and more jurisdictions are grappling with as cities continue struggling with adequate funding for police.

The extra dollars residents likely will pay in auto premiums rarely gets discussed in these deliberations. It’s a hidden tax that’s better spent paying for more police.

So while fraud fighters likely won’t win this policy battle, they can try to minimize the losses by educating the public and beefing up anti-fraud training of claims reps.

Pay now or pay later. Either way, this legislation will cost taxpayers and consumers.

About the author: Dennis Jay is executive director of the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.

Tag team is winning formula for fraud bills

Investigators wield impact as expert constituent voices Continue reading

A couple of years ago I blogged about how fraud investigators can be key to enacting strong fraud laws.

The state legislative season is heating up, so let’s revisit. We need to think of how to mobilize for action.

Lobbying legislators can be top-down and bottom-up.

Top-down involves national groups like the Coalition or insurers raising the issues with legislators. Often we testify before committees or the full chamber. That carries weight. We discuss the big picture, and how a state bill is good (or bad) for combating fraud from a larger viewpoint.

The bottom-up approach is the grassroots level. Investigators and other frontliners can take a lead role.

Investigators can wield great influence. State lawmakers listen to constituents. Local people put a local face on fraud bills. Investigators also are respected crime-fighting experts. That voice speaks convincingly to lawmakers. They may know little about a fraud bill — or the crime it combats.

A tag team is the best formula for rallying support for fraud laws: Local investigators work with national groups like the Coalition. We all bring vital strengths to the table.

State legislators usually don’t receive letters or messages about fraud issues. So when an investigator writes a letter, that could be the first time a legislator hears about the fraud bill, and why it’s good for the state.

This leads to my Rule of Five. One constituent letter raises few eyebrows in a legislator’s office. Five letters, and the legislator thinks about the issue. And 25 letters signals a groundswell of support. That can convince a legislator to support a fraud bill.

Enacting strong fraud laws has four positive goals. 1) Create an infrastructure for insurers to investigate and report scams; 2) Give fraud fighters laws and regs that are pillars for chasing down swindlers; 3) Oppose weak bills that undermine the fraud fight; and 4) Educate lawmakers about the benefits of strong fraud laws.

Together, our influence can place more fraud laws onto the books. We will educate lawmakers about how strong fraud laws benefit consumers throughout a state.

So let’s add a fifth goal for fraud laws: Empower consumers and insurers to better fight back against insurance fraud.

About the author: Howard Goldblatt is director of government affairs for the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.