Skip to main content
Saturday, November 14, 2026Nov 14

SPIN METER: Sketchy claims for high-tech health fraud buster

In this June 18, 2015, photo, Shantanu Agrawal, deputy administrator for program integrity and director of the center for program integrity at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington. Attorney General Loretta Lynch listens at left. Medicare says its computerized fraud prevention system identified $454 million in problematic payments and generated a financial return for the taxpayer of $10 for every dollar spent last year. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
In this June 18, 2015, photo, Shantanu Agrawal, deputy administrator for program integrity and director of the center for program integrity at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington. Attorney General Loretta Lynch listens at left. Medicare says its computerized fraud prevention system identified $454 million in problematic payments and generated a financial return for the taxpayer of $10 for every dollar spent last year. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

WASHINGTON (AP) – Medicare says its computerized fraud prevention system worked like a cybercharm last year, identifying $454 million in problematic payments and generating a financial return for the taxpayer of $10 for every dollar spent.

But you can’t take that to the bank: Most of the savings claimed by the Obama administration are unlikely to be realized, the Health and Human Services inspector general’s office said in its own recent analysis.

A more realistic estimate, the department’s watchdog said, is that $133.2 million in bogus payments may be recovered or stopped before money goes out. That would put the actual return to taxpayers at about $3 per dollar spent. That return-on-investment calculation is based on the cost of operating Medicare’s high-tech Fraud Prevention System, now in its fourth year.

The huge difference between the numbers is because the administration takes credit for all problem payments identified by the system. The inspector general doesn’t dispute the bigger number but calls it “unadjusted,” and only gives credit for payments likely to be recovered or stopped.

The higher estimate of $454 million includes actual and projected savings that “may not be recovered,” said the inspector general’s report. The lower estimate of $133 million represents savings that “reasonably can be expected,” based on historical patterns.