Hearing on Preventing Disability ScamsHearing on Preventing Disability Scams
_______________________________
CONTENTS _____________________ Advisory of February 26, 2014 announcing the hearing
WITNESSES PANEL 1:
______________________________
Hearing on Preventing Disability Scams Wednesday, February 26, 2014 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D.C. ____________________
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room B‑318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Johnson [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. [The advisory of the hearing follows:]_________________________________________________________________ Chairman Johnson. Good morning. Appreciate you all being here today. As part of my ongoing efforts as chairman to rout out fraud, waste, and abuse in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, we are here on behalf of the 11 million people with disabilities and their families and hardworking taxpayers, Americans demanding action now from Social Security. We need answers on how it will prevent conspiracy fraud in the Social Security Disability Insurance program. In September 2013 and more recently in January, this subcommittee held two hearings on disability conspiracy fraud occurring in Puerto Rico and New York City. Just yesterday, we learned about 28 more indictments in the ongoing New York conspiracy investigation, including 16 former New York police officers and 5 New York firefighters. To date, almost $30 million has been stolen from taxpayers in this case alone. Last October, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee released the shocking results of their bipartisan investigation detailing abusive conduct and collusion between a law firm, a Social Security Administrative Law Judge, and local doctors in West Virginia in approving benefits. Two themes run through all these alarming cases. First, these cases involve professionals, a shadowy industry of doctors, lawyers, and enablers, such as former Social Security employees, who know it pays to break the law, some of them. I hope you got rid of them. Second, while frontline employees ultimately detected these conspiracies, preventing fraud from occurring in the first place was not a priority for Social Security's leadership. Catching bank robbers before they get the cash is a lot easier than trying to recover stolen money later. That is just common sense. During last month's hearing, Commissioner Colvin told us that she considered it a success that Social Security staff discovered the fraud in Puerto Rico and New York. And we appreciate that. Let me be clear: That is not how I define success. More importantly, I don't think that is how those who count on these benefits or the taxpayers who support the program would define success either. Success is not discovering massive fraud; success is preventing it in the first place. Preventing fraud is what Social Security has to start doing right now. And at the January 16th hearing, I asked Acting Commissioner Colvin to give us a plan on ways to help stop organized fraudsters. I have since met with the Acting Commissioner and appreciate that she delivered that plan to us before the 30‑day deadline and look forward to discussing it today. Further, I have asked the Social Security Inspector General to do a full investigation of Social Security's management and their failure to prevent fraud conspiracies, such as Puerto Rico and New York. The IG's report will be important in determining whether Social Security is truly committed to preventing fraud conspiracy. Also with us today is a panel of public‑ and private‑sector experts with their recommendations on preventing fraud. In the past, Congress has sent Social Security billions of taxpayer dollars in extra funding to make sure those on the rolls deserve to be there. That is not only expensive but also an ineffective and inefficient way to find the fraudsters on the dole. It also doesn't find the crooks that help them get their illegal checks. Enough is enough. Money alone won't change Social Security's culture of pay first and chase later. Social Security's credibility is on the line. Further, how can Social Security even begin to ask for bigger budgets from hardworking, struggling taxpayers when, since the recession began in 2008, it paid out $244 million in employee bonuses, when it spends close to $15 million each year for employees to do union work instead of Social Security work, and when it is spending over $5 million fixing the damage of the Puerto Rico case, with more spending to follow in the New York case? I would like to add for the record that Social Security will receive full funding to conduct continuing disability reviews. But the bottom line is that preventing fraudsters from getting on the rolls in the first place will only happen if Social Security makes a complete and genuine commitment to end this pay‑first‑and‑chase‑later culture. Crimes against the program cheat hardworking Americans and honest beneficiaries. It must stop now. Americans want, need, and deserve no less. I now recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Becerra, and my friend for his opening statement. Mr. Becerra. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I note that this is our third hearing about conspiracies to steal from Social Security. In our first two hearings, we heard what the Social Security Administration did to stop fraud. Their frontline employees detected the suspicious pattern, their investigators followed up, and hundreds of people have now been indicted. Today, we need to talk about what Congress should be doing to support the Social Security Administration and to protect Social Security. I hope, Commissioner, that you will be blunt with us about what we in Congress need to do about the fraud and errors that SSA can't prevent unless Congress steps up to the plate. At our hearing on the New York conspiracy, we learned that over 100 people have been indicted for fraud, partly because SSA Special Agent Peter Dowd came up with a creative idea. He thought of checking to see whether the retired police officers who SSA suspected had submitted fraudulent evidence still had licenses to carry concealed weapons ‑‑ licenses which would not be issued if the applicant suffered from mental impairments. Special Agent Dowd worked for SSA's Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit in New York. Since this CDI program began, CDIs have successfully pursued over 30,000 fraud cases, saving taxpayers over $3‑1/2 billion. But what if the New York scheme had unfolded in 1 of the 29 States that don't have a Special Agent Dowd because SSA can't afford to staff a CDI unit in those States? At our hearing on the Puerto Rico conspiracy, we learned that the ringleaders were caught because of the vigilance of frontline staff who evaluate applications. Medical consultant Dr. Vicente Sanchez was the first to report the suspicious medical evidence to SSA, and program analyst Susan Palais and Maria Lora conducted numerous case reviews to spot the trends that helped SSA find the fraud. Tips from frontline SSA workers account for nearly two‑thirds of fraud investigations and most successful prosecutions. But what if the Puerto Rico scheme happened now, after Republican budget cuts significantly reduced the number of trained examiners like Susan Palais and Maria Lora? Mr. Chairman, too many frontline SSA employees and investigators played key roles in exposing fraud in New York and Puerto Rico for me to name them all during my 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent, however, to include their names in our hearing record. Chairman Johnson. Without objection. Mr. Becerra. SSA is required to periodically review whether beneficiaries are too disabled to work. In 2011, SSA reviewed about 350,000 targeted beneficiaries to see if they were still medically eligible for disability benefits and found that a small percentage were not. Social Security's Chief Actuary estimates that those reviews will eventually save taxpayers $5.4 billion, a return on our investment of $13 for every $1 spent. But what about the 1.3 million cases SSA couldn't review? Since 2011, our colleagues on the Republican side in the House have prevented over a million case reviews by blocking program integrity funding authorized by the Budget Control Act. Let me be clear: Those failures to protect Social Security aren't the SSA's fault. In 2012, Social Security paid 56 million Americans over $600 billion in earned benefits. SSA had a 0.22 percent overpayment rate. That is less than one‑half of 1 percent overpayment rate. This low error rate didn't happen by accident. It happened because the SSA has conscientious, well‑trained staff. But since 2011, Social Security has lost thousands of highly trained employees to budget cuts. Ultimately, Congress is responsible for protecting Social Security, and Congress needs to do its job. Over Social Security's lifetime, American workers have contributed over $14 trillion to Social Security. The Social Security Trust Fund currently has a $2.7‑trillion surplus ‑‑ money American workers have contributed and that they will need when they retire. In exchange for their contributions to Social Security, American workers get real economic security. They know that they and their families will be protected when they can no longer work. For 77 years and through 13 recessions, including the 2008 Wall Street recession, Social Security has paid Americans their benefits that they have earned on time and in full. That means it is vitally important that we prevent fraud, waste, and errors that could drain the trust funds and prevent us from paying Americans the benefits they earned and depend on to pay their bills. Mr. Chairman, today, I am introducing legislation to help SSA protect Social Security while still paying every American his or her earned benefits on time and in full. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues on the Democratic side of this subcommittee. My proposal provides SSA with the new tools it needs to fight fraud and prevent errors. As our recent experience demonstrates, there is no getting around the hard fact that one of those tools has to be adequate resources. SSA needs more tools to go after the people who violate positions of trust and rob Social Security, whether they are doctors, lawyers, translators, or even Social Security employees. Mr. Chairman, you and I have discussed working together to fight fraud, prevent errors, and support the Social Security Administration, and I want to continue that process. We have worked on some tough issues together in the past, and I believe we can solve this one too. And for that reason, I am pleased that we are doing this hearing, and I appreciate that you are helping us move forward this issue of fighting fraud within Social Security. With that, I will yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. As I said in our last hearing, I would like to work with you. Preventing fraud ought not to be a partisan issue, and I don't think it is, at least the way you and I see it. I look forward to reviewing the provisions in your bill. As is customary, any Member is welcome to submit a statement for the hearing record. Chairman Johnson. Before we move on to our testimony today, I want to remind our witness to please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes. However, without objection, all the written testimony will be made a part of the hearing record. We have two witness panels today. In the first panel, we have the Honorable Carolyn Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security Administration. And they call you Acting, but I think you are Commissioner. Ms. Colvin. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. So, welcome. Please go ahead. Ms. Colvin. Thank you. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Becerra, members of the subcommittee, good morning. I am Carolyn Colvin, the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. I thank you for continuing the conversation about our antifraud efforts. Like you, Mr. Chairman, I am outraged and personally offended whenever anyone attempts to defraud the American people. We strive to preserve the public's trust in our programs, and we have no tolerance for fraud. Every day, our employees honor these principles, and I am very proud of them. To those who would cheat us, let me emphasize: We will find you, we will seek the maximum punishment allowable under the law, and we will fight to recover the money you have stolen from the American people. Regrettably, there will always be people who try to steal. Recognizing this, we comprehensively train our field office and disability determination services employees to detect fraud. Because of this training, our dedicated DDS employees in New York City and Puerto Rico identified suspicious patterns in some disability claims and referred these cases to our OIG for investigation. Our employees remain our first and best line of defense against cheats. Last fiscal year, they referred almost 23,000 cases to the Office of the Inspector General. We know that we cannot prevent all fraud schemes any more than we can stop all crime. We can, however, deter and prosecute fraud. As the recent cases show, we tirelessly seek to bring to justice anyone who tries to cheat American taxpayers. While any level of fraud is unacceptable, the low level of fraud in our disability program speaks to our efforts. The best available evidence from OIG shows that the level of actual disability fraud is below 1 percent. We recognize that criminals continuously devise more complex and sophisticated methods to steal. Thus, with new tools now available, we are expanding our use of data analytics to enhance our ability to detect possible fraud. Data analytics should increase our ability to find questionable patterns in disability claims and prevent payment of fraudulent claims. Even the post powerful data analytics, though, will only produce leads that employees still must investigate. We are also collaborating with private insurers and other Federal agencies to learn new ways to combat complex and sophisticated fraud schemes. We will expand our successful antifraud training to all SSA employees, specifically focusing on lessons learned from real‑life examples. Time and time again, this training has paid off. To illustrate, a field office employee in Texas suspected that a disability beneficiary was working but not reporting his income. The employee referred the case to OIG, who determined that the beneficiary concealed his employment and conspired with his company to pay his wages in his wife's name. The beneficiary, his wife, and the company were all sentenced. The Cooperative Disability Investigation, or CDI, program is our best disability fraud prevention tool. For instance, a man in his 30s alleged a mental impairment that made him nervous around others. A CDI unit investigated after receiving a tip that the man worked as a model and actor. The CDI unit discovered that he was working as a model and regularly appeared on a television show. The casting director described the man as happy, upbeat, and very sociable. His claim was denied. We will add seven CDI units by the next fiscal year. We will also expand the capacity of a number of current CDI units by increasing the number of law enforcement investigators in them. According to the OIG, for every dollar spent on a CDI unit, we save $17. We are also establishing a central and specialized fraud unit, which will consist of disability examiners with considerable experience in potential fraud cases. They will review suspect cases and help develop further analytical tools. Additionally, we will expand our fraud prosecution unit. We have placed a number of our own attorneys in U.S. attorneys' offices to serve as fraud prosecutors. Since fiscal year 2003, they have secured over $60 million in restitution and more than 1,000 convictions. We are doubling the number of fraud prosecutors. As I have noted, all of these efforts require additional resources. We appreciate the additional funding that you gave us this fiscal year; however, without adequate sustained funding going forward, we may be unable to achieve all that we can in our antifraud activities. We need your support to ensure that we can continue to enhance our antifraud efforts. In short, we have long been committed to combating fraud. Although the level of fraud in our disability program is low, no amount of fraud is tolerable. Fighting fraud is an ongoing and evolving process, and we continue to adapt our antifraud strategies. Routing out fraud is a team effort. We need people who suspect something to say something. If you suspect fraud, please call OIG at 1‑800‑269‑0271. Thank you. I am very happy to answer any questions you may have. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate your testimony. [The statement of Ms. Colvin follows:] Chairman Johnson. Ms. Colvin, Social Security's budget increased by 27 percent from 2006 to 2014 at the same time that major fraud scandals were going on. That is nearly double the growth rate of the entire Labor‑HHS appropriations bill, which funds Social Security. As you know, the stimulus provided Social Security $1 billion that was used, in part, to reduce disability backlogs and hire 2,115 workers. Clearly, more money and manpower did not help prevent fraud from happening in Puerto Rico, New York, and West Virginia. During the period Social Security received special funding to handle the surge in disability applications, how was this funding used to prevent fraud rings from getting claimants on the rolls? And the continuing disability reviews don't count. That happens after they are getting paid. Ms. Colvin. Mr. Chairman, we take fraud very seriously in the agency. We have a culture where we are training people, if they see something, say something; if they hear something, do something about it. So every step of our process, there are antifraud activities. There are many, many cases that you will never see, that will never come to the media, where we prevent fraud every day. We mentioned that last year we referred 22,500 cases of suspected fraud. So this is something where we are vigilant, where we are always looking. There are going to be cases that we are not going to detect before it happens, but I need to reemphasize that there are thousands and thousands of cases that we do not pay because we have, in fact, detected fraud. And I think that is why the Office of the Inspector General has indicated that our fraud rate is so low. But when we detect fraud, we very aggressively pursue it. We refer it to the Inspector General, who makes that determination. We prosecute to the full extent of the law. And we actively seek reimbursement or restitution. One of the things that we would like to do is be able to expand some of those efforts nationwide. I have directed considerable resources away from our direct services in order to address this issue. And that is one of the reasons we had to take some of the drastic actions, like reducing the number of hours that our offices were open to the public, because we wanted our staff to have time to do those things. Remember, we lost over 11,000 employees in the last 3 years. So that means we have 11,000 less employees who are being vigilant and looking for fraud. Chairman Johnson. Yeah, you have said that several times. How much did you spend from your operating budget last year to prevent fraud? Ms. Colvin. I don't know that I can pull that out specifically because each stage of the process there are antifraud activities involved. For instance, at the front level, when the first application is taken, the individual is looking for whether or not there are any credibility issues based on the actual interview with the individual. And then we have a quality assurance review to make sure that that process has been handled right. When it moves from the front line of the field office and goes into the DDS, we have an in‑line quality review that is even more important and more difficult than at the first level. And then when it moves from there, it goes to the hearing level. So a part of all of the work that our staff is involved in is also antifraud activity. I can give you the cost of our CDI units, which are specifically our fraud units, the cost of our prosecutors. But when we look at our staff, because fraud is one piece of what they do, it is somewhat difficult to tease that out. Chairman Johnson. Well, how many dollars are you spending on fraud? Ms. Colvin. Again, I have to give you that for the record, because what I will have to do is give you the costs for the CDI units and the prosecution units, which are for specifically fraud. But, for instance, the dollars that we are spending now just to deal with the cases that have been identified in Puerto Rico and New York are dollars that are being redirected, and we would have to tally what those costs are. And then, of course, the training that we provide that is focused on antifraud, that is another cost. So I would like to try to pull that together and provide it to you for the record. Chairman Johnson. Okay. I appreciate you getting your plan to us. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of details. Will you provide the subcommittee a detailed timeline for the implementation of each initiative in your plan? Ms. Colvin. I would be happy to do that. Ms. Colvin. Most of the things that we identified in the plan are ongoing. Some of them are going to be expanded in 2015. We are very fortunate that, with the fiscal year 2014 appropriations, we are able to expand our CDI units. We were able to establish a special fraud unit in Ms. Disman's area in New York, where those individuals will have specialized experience in dealing with these types of cases. We want to expand that and bring in some additional skills. We are doing a number of things as a result of the 2014 budget, and then, depending upon a sustained budget for 2015, we would expand that further. But I can certainly give you a breakdown. But right now the things that we are doing in 2014 include more hiring on the front line, so we are bringing in more staff as a result of our 2014 budget to replace some of the losses. It won't make us whole. We are increasing the number of CDRs. Now, even though CDRs are not designed specifically to deal with fraud, when we do those medical reviews, we may find situations where there is conflicting information or whatever, and then we can refer those cases. So the fact that we have 1.3 million CDRs in our backlog does not help our program integrity efforts. We are in the process of developing and testing our predictive analytic tools. You have seen the things that we are doing with Judge Ray in ODAR. We would like to be able to expand that. So we are looking at our ability to do some expansion in 2014, and, again, with additional funding, we would like to do that more. But remember, even though data analytics has some real potential for us, it still requires human intervention. We have to have staff to analyze the data and to identify the patterns that exist and to develop the cases. The specialized fraud unit is already in existence in New York. We are looking at all of those cases, the lessons learned. Bea Disman has experience with this as a result of what has happened in Puerto Rico and New York. She will be taking cases from all over the country so that we will have a specialized unit. We would like to be able to fully staff that unit, and as it perfects its work there, we would like to expand that. We want to double the number of fraud prosecutors. We want to reestablish the antifraud committee. Bea Disman established an antifraud committee back in the 1990s when I was here; it was highly successful. But for the last 10 years, it has been dormant. We are reestablishing that. That has already been reestablished. And with that committee, I think -- I mean, with that antifraud committee, we will use that to benchmark what is happening in the industry, because fraud is not just an SSA problem. We will look at what is happening in other Federal agencies, and what is happening in the private sector. We have already had a meeting with eight Federal agencies to look at what they are doing with data exchange and data analysis so that we can develop a community of practice that will allow us to try to tackle this problem. Fraud is a social problem. It exists everywhere. The fraudsters are becoming more sophisticated, and we want to be able to get out in front of them. And so that is why data analytics is important. Chairman Johnson. So you have brought back the national antifraud committee? Ms. Colvin. Yes, we did. Chairman Johnson. Why was that dismantled in the first place? Ms. Colvin. I have only been in this position for 1 year this month ‑‑ Chairman Johnson. Yeah, but they probably told you about it. Ms. Colvin. It was obviously determined not to be as high a priority as some of the other work. One of the things I did when I first assumed this role a year ago was say we had to balance our direct services with our antifraud services and other program integrity activities. So that meant redirecting the resources, but we had to make tough decisions there. As a result, I closed offices and consolidated. I mentioned that we had to stop ‑‑ a lot of the training previously had been stopped because of the budget. I reinstituted training. So what we are trying to do is just balance the need to provide services to people who have earned these benefits. We have very long waiting times, very long processing times. We were making progress, and now, with the funding, because we have had $1 billion less per year than the President's budget, we have had to cut those things, Mr. Chairman. I know you don't want me to talk about resources, but SSA is one of the most efficient organizations I have ever worked with. Our overhead is 1.4 percent of our outlays ‑‑ 1.4 percent. I am not sure that even Unum, the insurance company here, has that number. I certainly have checked with other private agencies. So SSA is an efficient organization, but we can't do everything that we were able to do when we had 11,000 more employees at the same time that our workload is increasing. Chairman Johnson. Mr. Becerra, you are recognized. Mr. Becerra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, thank you again for being here. Let me begin by asking a question that I posed in my opening statement. New York, you had a Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit. You found this fraud committed by people that we typically trust ‑‑ Ms. Colvin. Absolutely. Mr. Becerra. ‑‑ former police officers, firefighters, people that we hold in high regard. But in 29 States you don't have a CDI unit. Ms. Colvin. Absolutely. Mr. Becerra. If this same fraud had occurred in 1 of those 29 States, would we have detected it? Ms. Colvin. Maybe. We refer cases to the Office of the Inspector General. But unlikely, because we would not have had the strong coordination. The CDI unit, for those who may not know, is comprised of SSA staff, DDS staff, OIG staff, and local law enforcement, so it is a coordinated effort. And they are able then to look very carefully at the cases that come in and use the data. We spend a lot of time developing those cases for OIG. So when you don't have that, you don't have the same level of coordination. I am very proud that the first CDI unit was developed when I was here in 1998 as the Deputy Commissioner. And, again, that was because we had a culture where we wanted to make sure the right check got to the right person at the right time. We are not an organization that pays first and chases later. I want to stress that. And so all the kinds of things that we are doing that have been effective could be much more effective if we had the resources. And I want to reemphasize again that you don't hear of the cases that we don't pay. There are hundreds, thousands of cases that we don't pay because we do see that there is something fraudulent, and they are not paid. Mr. Becerra. Could you use this coordination of the different agencies and offices so you would have more fraud busters in these 29 States? Ms. Colvin. Yes, Mr. Becerra, we certainly could. We would double what we are doing in the other areas with new money. Mr. Becerra. And would you expect to have the same type of return on investment ‑‑ Ms. Colvin. Absolutely. Mr. Becerra. ‑‑ where you would return far more money in savings of not having fraud committed than the money you use to pay these fraudbusters? Ms. Colvin. Absolutely, sir. We would still be looking at $17 for every dollar we spend in our CDI unit, $9 for every $1 we spend in our CDRs. We have demonstrated that if you give us the resources, we produce what we say we are going to produce. We are a production agency, a service agency, and it is very easy to show you how we spend that money. And I think you will find that we have always had good financial audits that show that we spend that money wisely. We are good stewards of the American taxpayers' dollars. Mr. Becerra. Yeah. Any investor on Wall Street would love those types of returns, $17 for every dollar invested, $9 for every dollar invested. Let me ask you this. Would it help the Social Security Administration if Congress increased the financial penalties that we assess for Social Security fraud committed by people who should know better? Ms. Colvin. Absolutely. When there is a conviction, it acts as a deterrent. If others see that they can commit fraud and they are going to get a slap on the hand, why wouldn't others be encouraged to do it? So, yes, a deterrent would help us. Mr. Becerra. Would it help the Social Security Administration if we gave you the ability to ban doctors who have committed fraud from participating in the determination of eligibility for benefits? Ms. Colvin. Yes. We do have that, to some degree. We do not use physicians who are on the do‑not‑pay list as maintained by Medicare. But certainly there would be others that perhaps we could find, and we would benefit from that. Mr. Becerra. Those are some of the provisions that we have in our legislation that we are introducing today to give you more tools to try to fight this fraud. Let me go back to something with regard to your budget. Again, recognizing that you serve 56 million Americans who are receiving benefits from you, not here and there ‑‑ 56 million Americans. One in every six Americans receives Social Security benefits, having paid for them, having earned them. Now it is up to you to make sure one in six Americans gets what he or she earned on time and in full. Yet, with that number ‑‑ and I think any business in America would love to say that their error rate is less than one‑half of 1 percent. Having said that, it is a growing population that you serve, because all those baby boomers are beginning to retire. Now, on the budget, your budget today is about $800 million lower than it was 4 years ago. Ms. Colvin. Yes, that is correct. Mr. Becerra. So, even though more and more baby boomers are retiring and going on to Social Security to collect their benefits that they earned, you are receiving less money today than you received 4 years ago. In 2011, this Congress, under Republican leadership, cut your budget and rescinded most of your reserve funds that you had. In 2012, they left the budget as it was, at that low 2011 number, despite your growing number of beneficiaries. And in 2013, your budget was cut again by the autopilot, across‑the‑board, insane sequester cuts. So this year's budget only restored part of those 2013 losses that you suffered, and none of the other cuts were restored, except for providing program integrity money after a 2‑year delay. And that program integrity money is what helps us go after the fraud; it is those fraudbusters. And so I think we have to recognize that you have work to do, but we have work to do here in Congress, as well. And the worst thing that we can do is shackle your ability to do your job with a growing number of beneficiaries so that you can go after the fraud to protect the money that people have earned and put into Social Security. And so it is a tango; you have to dance, we have to dance. I hope you will continue to be honest with us, about what we have to do. Because we have to help you make sure that the money that people send to Social Security is there for them when they need it and they have retired and have to pay their bills. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. Chairman Johnson. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Renacci, you are recognized. Mr. Renacci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Acting Commissioner Colvin, for being here. You know, it is interesting because, coming from the private sector, we always had to learn to live with less. And, you know, I hear the Ranking Member talk about your budget being cut, and I don't know whether your budget 4 years ago was already too high, so we don't know that. But what I really know is that the best way to fix things is fixing them early on and having you have the ability to prevent this early on. And I think, again, a couple of the ideas the Ranking Member brought up I think are good ideas, and I would like to hear some of those from you, as I think we in Congress should be hearing what you believe are some of the ways we can help you. But I would really like to find out, what are we doing with all this information to train those employees? I mean, I know you have a lot of good employees, but are they being trained properly? I will give you an example. How much time do your regional managers and executives really spend with the frontline staff? And then all these areas that we are finding problems, are we fixing them at the frontline staff? Can you kind of go into that a little bit? Because I think that is so important. Ms. Colvin. Thank you, sir. We have always said that the strength of our organization is our employees. So we spend tremendous time and resources in training them. It has often been said that it takes longer to train one of our staff than it does to train an astronaut. And we have very comprehensive training, both how to do the work as well as how to identify fraud. This is done when they first come in. It is done on an ongoing basis, on a yearly basis. If we identify that there are specific problems, then there is special training so that they are prepared to address that. The managers assign mentors to the employees to work with them. There are quality reviews to see if the training that we have given them has benefited them and that they are learning it and doing the work right. So I believe that the training is key to the success of what we do. We have a highly competent group of staff. They have mentors. And our managers are very committed to ensuring that they get the job done. There is a lot of pride in the organization in providing good customer service but more pride in being good stewards of the tax dollars. So I think we do that. And I would reemphasize that, unfortunately for us, you don't see all the good things we do, so you don't see all the fraud that is prevented. Mr. Renacci. All right. Well, and I do believe that there are cases that aren't being paid. I heard you say that. The question is, for the people back in my district, they are concerned about the dollars that do get paid out and trying to avoid those. And I realize you have a low percentage, but any percentage ‑‑ Ms. Colvin. Any percentage is too much. Mr. Renacci. ‑‑ any percentage is too much. Ms. Colvin. Absolutely. Mr. Renacci. So when you find problems like we find in Puerto Rico or West Virginia or New York, when you found issues that was fraud‑related, what is process of taking some of those issues and bringing them back to the frontline staff to stop it? Ms. Colvin. Absolutely. That is what Ms. Disman is doing. I mentioned that we have established a special fraud unit, so we have individuals who have a great deal of experience in dealing with these types of cases. So we identify lessons learned, and then we come back and we incorporate that in the new training for the staff on the front line. We are really problem solvers in SSA. I will give you a good example. When Treasury decided that all benefits had to be through direct deposit, we had a significant number of fraudsters who were attempting to redirect those direct deposits. At one time, we were looking at as many as 3,000 attempted fraud activities in a week. We are now down to fewer than, around 400. And that is because we identified what was happening, and we put things in place to ensure that it would not continue to happen. But, even more importantly, I would say 75 percent of the attempts we were able to prevent from even happening before a benefit is redirected. And the 25 percent of the cases where there may be a benefit directed, we are talking about 1 month, and then we aggressively go back to pursue that. So whenever we see a situation occur, we do a careful analysis of what happened and what we need to do to prevent it from happening again. Fraudsters have become very sophisticated, and that is why we are turning to data analytics and looking at what tools can be addressed. Because when you have a third‑party person facilitating the fraud, like a physician or a firefighter or someone who are persons of trust, it becomes more difficult. Mr. Renacci. Real quickly, I know my time has run out, but how quickly does that process get put back into the front line? Ms. Colvin. Immediately. Immediately. Mr. Renacci. All right. Ms. Colvin. We have ongoing training. It is not one‑time. It is ongoing. Mr. Renacci. All right. Thank you. I thank you for your testimony. I yield back. Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Kelly, you are recognized. Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Colvin ‑‑ Chairman Johnson. Oh, excuse me. I skipped over my Democrat friend, Doggett. And he is from Texas. How could I miss him? Mr. Doggett. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to join with you particularly in your concluding remarks, that crimes against Social Security cheat hardworking Americans and honest beneficiaries. And I think that there is strong bipartisan support, as we have looked at these various instances of fraud, about our need to ferret them out. And I think, just as your statement and all of our comments is not directed at attacking all police and firefighters around the country because of the wrongdoing of a handful, but a significant handful, of firefighters and police officers, retired officers in New York City, that it is important as we look at this overall system that we not attack all advocates on behalf of the disabled because there may be some wrongdoing or misconduct by a handful of them. It is important when these individuals with disabilities go before the Social Security Administration that they have the opportunity to be represented by honest advocates, as many of them are. Similarly, it is important to recognize that, while not every employee in the Social Security Administration or every administrative judge working on Social Security cases is doing a good job, that the vast majority of them are. And as we find examples of individuals that are not up to the task, that needs to be dealt with. But we need to recognize that we basically have a system that works. And what we are trying to do is ferret out the crimes, just as though law enforcement officers around the country dealing with other kind of crimes and fraud are trying to ferret that out. Even though we never get to 100 percent in preventing burglaries, robberies, other kinds of fraudulent conduct, we won't get to 100 percent of fraud of Social Security, but that ought to be our goal. Now, how do we accomplish that goal? Well, I think we have to have adequate resources, as the Acting Commissioner has indicated, and adequate tools to address fraud. And without doing a lot of finger‑pointing about the cuts and the inadequacies of the Social Security budget, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be constructive ‑‑ I know that in our full committee we have Secretary Sebelius and Secretary Lew coming to testify about aspects of the President's budget; I don't know what will be in the budget concerning fraud reduction and the Social Security Administration generally ‑‑ but to have a hearing in this subcommittee on the budget for Social Security and its adequacy. When you hear that a dollar spent on OIG generates such significant returns, I think we need to scrutinize carefully the entire budget for Social Security and ensure that it is up to the task of fulfilling our bipartisan commitment to reducing crime. And then, in addition to just the dollars that are available, we need to be sure that we have the tools available. I joined with Mr. Becerra in his legislation. I realize that this is recently filed legislation, but I think it is the first specific legislative steps that have been presented to this subcommittee for how to deal with this problem. And I would hope that we could have a hearing on the proposal that you have advanced. I am sure that there are many other ideas that can be advanced about the best way to deal with fraud. But instead of our just talking and having an expose about fraud that some may feel is designed to kind of tarnish the whole Social Security disability system, let's focus on what we can do about it in the dollars and the specific tools. I think you have some good ideas. I am sure you are open to getting other specific legislative proposals. But we are not short of time in this Congress. We have the opportunity for constructive action and a prompt hearing on the Social Security budget and on the Becerra proposal and any other ideas that Members have for addressing fraud. Seems to me to be the most specific and constructive way forward to put a stop as much as we possibly can to the abuse we have seen in New York and Puerto Rico and some other parts of the country. I thank you, and I yield back. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. Mr. Kelly, you want to speak? Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Colvin, thanks for coming in to see us again. What I always wonder about in these things, how big is your agency right now, when you take total people on staff? Ms. Colvin. We have about 62,000 employees throughout the country. Mr. Kelly. And your budget? Ms. Colvin. $11.7 billion? Yes, $11.7 billion. Mr. Kelly. Okay, so it is 66,000, did you say? Ms. Colvin. No, 62,000. Mr. Kelly. Sixty‑two thousand staff. Ms. Colvin. We have lost 12,000. Mr. Kelly. Okay. And, again, the budget is what? Ms. Colvin. $11.7 billion is about right. Mr. Kelly. $11.7 billion. Okay. And the reason I bring it up, because I think there is always confusion that says, well, if the government would just give us more money ‑‑ listen, this is not an indictment on Social Security people. Ms. Colvin. I understand. Mr. Kelly. But in my life and in what I have done for a living up until the last 3 years, it is employers and employees paying in together into this fund. And if I am reading the notes right, we say that by 2016 the revenues will be sufficient to pay only 80 percent of SSDI benefits beginning in 2016. So we are on a trajectory that doesn't look good. And what you are doing, you are trying to get this fraud eliminated. Early detection is always the best type of correction, right? You are going to minimize your loss if you get it early enough. And I am interested to hear Mr. Royal from Unum, because I know from the private sector it is not a matter of whether you want to do it or not. It is you either do it or you don't survive. You have to get it in line. What else can you do? Because it seems to me, in a country that leads the world in technology and being able to derive tendencies ‑‑ and in my business, I am an automobile dealer, we have something called warranty reimbursement. That is where something goes wrong with your car and they say, well, it is the result of either poor workmanship or something didn't work right. But I have to tell you, the factories are all over me all the time when they look at the number of dollars we are claiming for doing warranty work. And we are doing the same thing with the Social Security Disability system. You are saying, okay, this is fraudulent, we want to go back and collect it. Mr. Becerra made some points. What are the penalties for people who do these fraudulent things? Ms. Colvin. Unfortunately, we don't control the penalties. That is in the law, in the judicial system. I have always been concerned that they get off rather lightly, but, you know, that is white‑collar crime. And it always has been a light sentence. We would like to see the maximum sentence under the law, but we don't control that. Once it goes to the Office of the Inspector General and then gets ‑‑ Mr. Kelly. But that is something we could help you with, right? I am assuming Mr. Becerra is making some suggestions about how to change. Ms. Colvin. I would certainly hope that you can. Mr. Kelly. Because if the time doesn't fit the crime, I mean, what is the reason for not doing it? Too many of these people are making a great living off it. Ms. Colvin. Well, you are aware that in many States the U.S. Attorneys will not even accept our cases because they don't come up to the dollar value that they are interested in pursuing. That is one of the reasons we began to use Social Security dollars to use our own attorneys in the 12 States where we are, where the U.S. attorneys were willing to work with us. But many States will not accept these cases for prosecution because they don't rise to the dollar level, so that is a big issue for us. Mr. Kelly. Yeah, I am sure it is. That is difficult. If you really aren't going to hit them in the wallet, they are going to say, well, no big deal, I will just keep doing what I am doing, it is not that big of a deal. Ms. Colvin. Well, we are still aggressive in identifying them. Unfortunately, we don't control the outcome, but we are very aggressive. As I mentioned, last year we referred 22,500 cases. Mr. Kelly. And so, of those 22,500, how many were actually looked at? Ms. Colvin. I think about 100 were accepted for prosecution. Mr. Kelly. One hundred? Ms. Colvin. One hundred. Mr. Kelly. Out of how many? Ms. Colvin. Twenty‑two thousand, five hundred. Mr. Kelly. That is incredible. Ms. Colvin. I don't control that, sir. Mr. Kelly. I know. I am not saying you do. Whenever employers and employees put this money into this fund ‑‑ this isn't government‑funded, this is wage‑tax funded, and I think sometimes we forget about this. And so when people start saying, if we just put more money into it ‑‑ if you are going back to these people to pay this and saying, if you just put more money in, maybe it will stay ‑‑ but it has always bothered me that sometimes there is a disconnect about who actually funds all this stuff. If you are telling me that you come up with 22,000‑some cases and they accepted 100, that has to be very frustrating for the people that are out there doing that work. Ms. Colvin. It absolutely is, but fortunately we have a dedicated team who still refer the cases. Now, we have been able to do some things. For instance, the Office of Inspector General has increased the number of civil penalties that they are able to impose. I don't think I have the dollar here, but they are doing more. We strengthened our administrative sanctions process. But, basically, the prosecution is the thing that would deter folk, and the prosecutions are not that successful. Mr. Kelly. All right. Well, then I would think, though, for us, for both sides, if we would help you, if we would put more teeth into these things, it would help you to win. So it does come back to the, you know, help us to help you. I am glad you are here. I am glad you are telling us all about that. I am concerned about it, because I do know where the funding comes from. I know it is not from the government; I know it is from people who paid wage taxes. I would like to see more people get back to work, quite frankly. Ms. Colvin. Right. Mr. Kelly. That would help, too. But we don't see that happening as quickly as we would like to see it happen. But, again, stay in touch with us on this, and let us know how we can help you. Ms. Colvin. Absolutely. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Becerra, I would like to take a look at your piece. I think that we are on the right track, but we got to make sure ‑‑ throwing money at a problem isn't the answer. We have to get more bang for the bucks. And I know we talk about the percentage, but a small percent of a big number is a big number. And it is all taxpayer‑funded. Mr. Becerra. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Kelly. Yes, certainly. Mr. Becerra. The chairman and I were just chatting about how what we could try to do is move forward from these hearings and see if we could come up with a bipartisan approach to see if we could move something forward. Mr. Kelly. Absolutely. Well, you know what I want to have. I don't want Ms. Colvin or anybody that works for you to walk out of here thinking, you know, these people just want to beat the living daylights out of us every time they get a chance. That is not the case. We both work for the same person: That is the American taxpayer. So if we can help you, I would love to do it. And, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, let's work together and get this fixed for the American people. Chairman Johnson. Oh, who have we got left? Mr. Crowley. Wait. Mr. Thompson I think is ahead of you. Go ahead. Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to just chime in with the folks who have expressed an interest in working together on fixing these issues. I think it is extremely important. And I want to say that, you know, I have represented just about every county in northern California at one time or another. And there are Social Security employees and offices all over northern California, and your employees are an absolute joy to work with. I have found that every one of them is there to do the right thing. Ms. Colvin. Thank you so much, Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson. They work hard. They work well with my different offices. And I am sure it is terribly frustrating for them when these issues are pointed out. And so I would like to ‑‑ I am proud to be a co‑author of Mr. Becerra's bill, but I am proud to hear that folks on both sides of the aisle want to work it out. And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, if we could do it with the cooperation of the folks at Social Security. It is terribly frustrating, my time here in Congress ‑‑ and I just had another go‑around at this last year with USDA on a huge problem, and I wanted to sit down and work out a solution, and there was just no interest in that agency working with Congress. They thought that they had it dialed in and that all we were going to be is a problem for them. And I hope that is not the same with Social Security. Ms. Colvin. You will find that it is not. I think the chairman will tell you that we have been very interested in working with this committee. The chairman and Mr. Becerra have been very supportive. We understand your concerns about the problem. We are as concerned. And we welcome the fact that you are proposing legislation. Thank you, Mr. Becerra. We will provide technical assistance and do anything else that you request that we can do. Mr. Thompson. Well, my sense is that you know better the issues and the obstacles than any of us do. So if we could do that, if we could work collaboratively and collectively, I think we could ‑‑ Ms. Colvin. We welcome that. Mr. Thompson. I am interested in one issue. You have mentioned all of the fraud that you stop from happening. And I know that errors are also a problem. How do you differentiate between fraud and error? Because some people aren't frauds; they just make mistakes. Ms. Colvin. Absolutely. Mr. Thompson. Are you able to break that out, as well? Ms. Colvin. We are. One piece of overpayments is fraud, and that is a very, very small percent, as identified by the Inspector General. But it means that the person has taken action or given misleading information designed to get a benefit to which they are not entitled, and that is fraud. But we have a large amount of overpayments due to the complexity of the program, individuals not reporting their wages timely. Or, in some instances, we cannot get it processed fast enough, so that the benefit goes out and then we have to try to get it back. But even with the shortage of staff ‑‑ and I need to emphasize this ‑‑ our accuracy rate increased this year. So we didn't just say, oh, my goodness, we don't have resources and we let it go. SSI is one of our most complex programs, and we still had an increase of 1 percent accuracy right in that program. So we live this every day, and we are always looking for ways to improve it. And we aggressively pursue going after the money, whether it has been paid out by error or if it were deliberate. Mr. Thompson. And your recovery rate is what? Ms. Colvin. Less than I would like, 58 percent. But we have a very aggressive ‑‑ Mr. Thompson. What percent? Ms. Colvin. Fifty‑eight percent. We have a very aggressive debt‑collection process. Of course, we can do the offset if the person is receiving a benefit. We know we can do the Treasury offset if they are getting a Federal check for any reason, taxes or anything else. But if we have to do our external collections, then that is the regular process of collecting a debt. That is more problematic, but we also do that. And one of the things we have done recently is taken the time limit off when a debt can no longer be collected, so that if someone is not in pay status but they come in pay status later, we can go back and get that money. Mr. Thompson. And I would like to see if you could submit it to the committee or maybe part of the working group, however it is going to be set up, a list of things that you think that we could do that would help you both defray the errors, error rate, as well as prevent fraud, but also go after these guys or make it so the IG can better go after them. Anything at all that you could give us that would help us do that I think would be important. Ms. Colvin. In the next panel, you are going to hear from Bill Zielinski, who is our CIO and our deputy for systems. We have done, I think, some incredibly good work in that area, and he will talk about that more. The chairman has been very supportive of IT. And, of course, we have been able to continue to do the kind of production that we have because of our investment in IT. And we need to be able to continue to do that. Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Crowley. Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for holding this hearing, and Commissioner, thank you. The alleged wrongdoing we have all seen in the media, including people claiming fake ailments due to September 11th to Social Security disability payments, it sickens me to say the least. I want to thank the district attorney of New York county, Mr. Vance, for his work in terms of prosecuting those cases. I myself am from New York City, I am the son and grandson of New York City police officers. My father was a detective. I have cousins both in the fire department and the police department. I had a first cousin who was killed on 9/11. Ms. Colvin. I'm sorry. Mr. Crowley. His brother Michael continues to work as a fireman, lost 12 men in his house that day. Ms. Colvin. I'm sorry. Mr. Crowley. He happened to be off duty that day, otherwise he would have perished as well. So I need to begin by highlighting that there are far too many brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day, and they do that ofttimes injured and they do it ofttimes not feeling well. Ms. Colvin. Absolutely. Mr. Crowley. We were all damaged by 9/11. Anyone who lived in New York and beyond, our country was damaged psychologically. We have all, I am sure have some effect from that. Ms. Colvin. Absolutely. Mr. Crowley. But what these individuals have done ‑‑ and three‑fourths of the people who are being prosecuted so far are former police officers and firefighters. They are traitors to their brothers and sisters in those departments. I would even suggest that they are borderline traitors to our country because they erode the confidence that people have in their government, when they believe they can get away with this, and it is not only perceived but they actually in many cases are getting away with this. And so what they do is also they not only dishonor their uniform or their former uniform, they are really, really eating away at the fabric of responsibility of our government to provide for those who need help. These men and women are legitimate recipients, many of them are ‑‑ Ms. Colvin. Absolutely. Mr. Crowley. ‑‑ who have suffered of the Federal Social Security Disability Insurance program, and we should not and cannot let the few ruin a necessary program for the many, or a few ruin the good name of thousands of heroes who work for the NYPD and the FDNY. Commissioner Colvin, I would like to ask you a few questions, and just yes or no answers if I could from you please. Wasn't it a Social Security administrative frontline caseworker who detected the fraud there? Fraud that was not detected by the City of New York when it awarded disability pay and benefits to officers who were alleged to have committed this fraud against the Social Security system? Ms. Colvin. Yes, it was. Mr. Crowley. When the Social Security Administration invested in your special fraud busting teams known as CDIs, does that save taxpayers' money and reduce fraud in the Social Security program? Ms. Colvin. Yes, it does. Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Commissioner Colvin. Social Security is a bedrock principle of America and we must do everything we can to protect and strengthen the program for future generations. This includes cracking down on criminals and fraudsters. It was the Social Security Administration staff that detected the fraud in the disability program. The frontline workers there are our best defense against criminals. But I am concerned about some of the jargon that would malign their work in the name of maligning government services. I think there are far too many antigovernment groups out there that would use this to further malign the Social Security Administration. Congress must stop the attacks on Social Security, including the over $1.2 billion in cuts that many of my Republican colleagues put forward and have taken away from Social Security programs, with more planned if that is not stopped. Democrats have a plan to protect the integrity of the Social Security system. Protect taxpayers' money, and send these ripping off Social Security individuals to prison, and that is why I am pleased to join my colleague, Mr. Becerra, and I am very happy Mr. Kelly has indicated his desire to work in conjunction in a bipartisan way with the Chairman as well. I would like to see that bill come to the floor. A bill that will go after those individuals and put them behind bars for a very, very, very long time and make this a non‑profitable scheme. I am concerned that many on the far, far right in terms of the Tea Party aspect are again using this as an opportunity to attack our Government itself. But I do think that support of a bipartisan bill to put these people behind bars will go a long way to curtailing that. Finally, recognizing that we can't stop every criminal act at the front end, this bill will send those caught ripping off the Social Security system to prison. The bill makes clear that conspiracy to defraud Social Security is a felony and authorizes a higher penalty of up to 10 years in prison for conspiracy for ring leaders and corrupted sources who recruit others to commit fraud, coach witnesses, and multiply the losses of Social Security and its trust fund. I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that the Social Security Fraud and Error Prevention Act of 2014, as you can work out the details of that bill, can be one of those bills that can come to the floor in a bipartisan way in a bipartisan spirit to bolster the people at Social Security, a valued program, to help those who are suffering continue to get the services they need, and to capture those who would defraud the system for their own personal gain ‑‑ it doesn't get much worse than that in my opinion ‑‑ and put them to jail for many, many years to come. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Johnson. Thank you for your comments. Commissioner, our witnesses on the next panel have some ideas on how to prevent fraud. If you are able to stay, we invite you to stay and listen. Ms. Colvin. I will stay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. Thank you for being here. We now proceed to the second panel. Please move forward. Thank you all for sticking around, I appreciate it. Maybe you learned something. We did. Seated at the table we have J. Matthew Royal, Vice President and Chief Auditor, Unum Group, Chattanooga, Tennessee; William Zielinski, Deputy Commissioner of Systems and Chief Information Officer, Social Security Administration; and Allen Shark, Fellow, National Academy of Public Administration. I welcome you all to the hearing this morning. Thank you so much for being here. Mr. Royal, welcome. Please go ahead. Mr. Royal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. We are pleased to be here today and we appreciate the opportunity to share some of our aspects of our fraud risk management program at Unum. Unum is a market leader in disability, life, critical illness, and accident insurance with more than 160 years of experience. We work with more than 175,000 businesses worldwide, from Fortune 500 to small businesses covering more than 22 million people. In 2013, we paid more than 6 billion in benefits. We are a U.S.‑based company with approximately 10,000 employees with major operations in California, Maine, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Tennessee, and in the UK. Insurance fraud is the second most costly white collar crime in America, exceeded only by tax evasion. Nearly 80 billion in fraudulent claims are processed each year in the United States. This may be a conservative figure based on known acts of insurance fraud and not the unknown, undetected, or unreported acts. To effectively combat insurance fraud insurers must be capable of quickly identifying potential fraud, have the proper infrastructure in place to adequately manage and respond to fraud risk, and frequently monitor and test antifraud control effectiveness. At Unum, the significant investment we have made in our antifraud program has helped position our company as an industry leader in detecting and preventing fraudulent disability claims. While the total amount of fraud is undeterminable, we estimate less than 1 percent of the approximately 400,000 disability claims received by Unum each year are fraudulent. From Unum's perspective, strong fraud risk management is critical to successfully managing our business and offering affordable financial protection to our customers. Unum's fraud risk management program is managed by the SIU, the Special Investigative Unit, led by Jeff Connor, Vice President, who joins me here today. The SIU conducts investigations into potentially fraudulent claims and promotes corporate antifraud strategies and initiatives. The following summarizes key aspects of Unum's fraud detection and prevention program. The foundation consists of our policies and procedures. Unum maintains policies which help ensure compliance with applicable insurance fraud laws and regulations. The SIU makes a fraud detection and response guide available to all employees to help them recognize and report suspicious claims. The company also maintains a toll‑free fraud reporting hotline and encourages anyone with information about insurance fraud to report the information, allowing them to do so anonymously and confidentially. Strong training and education reinforces our policies and procedures. Unum's comprehensive antifraud training program ensures employees possess the requisite skills to identify and report insurance fraud. Unum also designates certain employees based on job function as integral antifraud personnel. These employees, including claims processors, underwriters, and certain corporate personnel, receive mandatory antifraud awareness training at regular intervals. Now, complementing our front line is the use of advanced technology. Unum uses predictive analytics to continuously monitor disability claims for potential fraud. We developed our model using data from our own historical fraudulent claims. The model analyzes our claims inventory daily, scoring each claim based on how closely it resembles customized fraud attributes. Higher scores indicate greater fraud potential and claims exceeding a baseline score are reviewed by a trained analysts. About 1 out of five high scoring claims that are reviewed result in additional investigation and that accounted for 30 percent of the total amount of potential fraudulent loss activity detected and reported in 2013. Unum works closely with law enforcement to ensure that those who commit insurance fraud are held accountable. The SIU reports all suspected fraud to law enforcement and/or the appropriately designated regulatory agency responsible for the investigation and prosecution of insurance fraud. We frequently provide disability fraud training to key law enforcement agencies and actively assist in investigations and prosecutions. Our antifraud initiatives are focused on maintaining a strong public‑private partnership to combat fraud and share information about emerging fraud trends and risks. In conclusion, while the overwhelming majority of claims Unum receives are legitimate, there are bad actors that seek to game the system and file over facilitate fraudulent claims. Unum has a comprehensive approach to fraud prevention which includes establishing effective policies, continuous employee training, and the use of advanced technology and modern information sources. There is a strong business case for our approach to fraud prevention and it plays a role in keeping group disability insurance policies affordable. Unum stands ready to work with this committee and the Social Security Administration to share our best practices and our experience. Thank you. [The statement of Mr. Royal follows:] Chairman Johnson. Thank you, sir, appreciate that. Mr. Zielinski, welcome. Please go ahead. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. ZIELINSKI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR SYSTEMS AND CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Mr. Zielinski. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Becerra, members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss Social Security's use of information technology to administer our programs and to detect and prevent improper payments and support antifraud initiatives. My name is Bill Zielinski and I am Social Security's Chief Information Officer and Deputy Commissioner for Systems. I am responsible for all aspects of our information technology program from planning new IT projects to overseeing their implementation and managing their day‑to‑day operation and upkeep. Every year, we pay $850 billion in benefits to 63 million people. The vast majority of these payments are accurate and timely. We owe this record of success to a highly skilled and dedicated workforce that is supported by IT. IT is behind everything that we do. Our employees work with electronic claims files using applications that enhance the productivity, automate many routine tasks, and enforce the program laws and policies. Without the productivity increases gained from our strategic IT investments, we would not have been able to keep pace considering our growing workloads and limited resources. In addition to supporting our programs through IT, we have built on‑line services for the public that are easy to use, secure, and highly rated. For example, our customers can use on‑line services to apply for benefits, change their address, request a benefits statements. These services allow our customers to choose their preferred method of doing business with us and allows us to keep up pace with our ever growing workloads. I do want to stress that productivity increases do not come at the expense of quality. In fact, our applications are designed to ensure quality work products and payment accuracy. For example, in my written testimony I highlight the eCAT program which helps State disability examiners apply policies correctly throughout the entire decision‑making process. Our applications also enable our employees to gather third party data that may reveal when a beneficiary has been overpaid. Without IT supporting it, this type of investigation is labor intensive and impractical. For example, regarding the means test SSI program in fiscal year 2012 we fully implemented the Access to Financial Institutions program which allows our employees to obtain electronic bank information directly from the banks and we are currently testing a similar process for obtaining information on ownership of non‑home real property. We do not rely solely on our employees to discover on or beneficiaries to report all the changes that may affect their benefits. We have the largest data exchange program in the Federal Government. Our exchanges provide us with a wealth of information that we use to pay benefits accurately and efficiently administer our programs. We get information that varies across the board from income and asset data to incarceration data and medical information. We take seriously our responsibility to be effective stewards of our programs. Each year we complete periodic medical reevaluations to determine whether beneficiaries are still disabled and SSI redeterminations to review the nonmedical factors of eligibility. These reviews save billions of program dollars with only a small investment of administrative funds, yet we do not receive the resources to complete all of them. Instead, we have long used predictive models to prioritize the cases with the best chance of finding improper payments. These models have allowed us to achieve an impressive return on the taxpayers' investment. For example, we estimate that our SSI redetermination model helped us recover or prevent $3.4 billion in SSI overpayments in fiscal year 2013 alone. As we move forward we are developing additional models such as the representative payee misuse model that will allow us to target fraud specifically. The next area we are looking at is data analytics. We expect these diagnostic tools to increase our ability to find questionable patterns of activity in disability claims and prevent fraudulent claims from being processed. We will spend the rest of this fiscal year developing and testing some of these tools. We have a long history of delivering results and administering our vital programs in an efficient and cost effective manner. We have been successful in large part due to our highly trained and dedicated employees and because we have made significant and strategic investments in IT that have allowed us to keep up with the ever‑increasing workloads. However, these investments in IT and staffing come with a cost. Reduced budgets in recent years have meant less and less available for IT development and training. And while we appreciate the resources that have been provided for the current fiscal year, we hope you will continue to make that investment in our programs. And as Commissioner Colvin expressed this morning, only with that sustained funding can we build upon our efforts to stop those who would steal from the American people. Thank you for the opportunity to update you on our programs, and I will be willing and happy to answer any questions you may have. [The statement of Mr. Zielinski follows:] Chairman Johnson. Thank you, sir. Dr. Shark, you are welcome. Mr. Shark. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Becerra and members of the subcommittee. I guess I am the outsider looking in, so I guess I have a different perspective. I wanted to thank you for the invitation to testify today to discuss high impact, viable and feasible recommendations that can assist the Social Security Administration preventing and detecting conspiracy fraud in the disability insurance program. It is an honor to contribute to this important discussion. My name is Alan Shark. I am a fellow and chair of the technology leadership standing panel of the National Academy of Public Administration. I also serve as the exec director of the Public Technology Institute and an associate professor of practice at Rutgers University School of Public Affairs and Administration. I need to say that my comments today represent my own views from the outside looking in and also derive in part from the recommendations issued by an independent panel of our academy to the Recovery Accountability and Transportation Board following the results of a national dialogue on innovative tools to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Unchecked, we know that conspiracy fraud in the disability insurance program illustrates the importance of leveraging technology to strengthen SSA's capacity to intercept suspicious activity at its inception. Absent more sophisticated adaptable measures, the problems recently uncovered will only repeat themselves in some form or fashion and likely worsen. SSA must focus its efforts on implementing the newest analytic tools for fraud detection used by the private sector and develop an agency wide culture of fraud prevention that emphasizes the need for advanced technology, provides the leadership and training to support it. Towards this end I offer six recommendations. The first in the process, is for SSA to develop an IT system that incorporates textual analysis tools and predictive analytics technology to maximize its ability to detect fraud. They can no longer rely on the integrity of the participants and the complex benefits application process. SSA needs to acquire technology‑driven detection methods capable of flagging fraudulent activity more consistently, systematically and accurately. In other words, it needs to be further integrated into the system more so than it is today. Today's technology allows for unstructured data stored by SSA regarding disability claims to find patterns indicative of fraudulent activity. These tools offer the potential to prevent and detect fraud by automating the scanning of lengthy government documents thus using structured data with unstructured data with the ability to flag suspected fraudulent activities. Predictive analytics is another tool that including pattern recognition among data sources, and is used for techniques such as heat mapping, which presents a visual influx of commonalities such as sudden increases in claims with common diagnoses or claim representatives. The second is SS needs to develop and maintain a culture of collaboration and information sharing, which provides another level of protection against fraud. Technology‑driven detection methods will enable SSA to better leverage data sources, including State and local government data, proprietary business data to improve data validation and predicting potential fraud. Number 3, SSA should also explore potential partnerships with other government agencies that are coordinating efforts to combat fraud, waste, and abuse. They are highlighted in my prepared remarks. Number 4, SSA must improve its current IT infrastructure to accommodate this new fraud detection technology. SSA Office of Disability Adjudication, ODAR, has already paved the way for these changes through its use of similar technology. As part of this effort, SSA should determine how databases throughout the Administration, regional offices, field offices, and state DDDS offices can be integrated. Number 5, SSA must develop a culture of prevention and detection that extends to all employees. This effort should include fraud detection training for all SSA employees; educating employees about data analysis tools and other technologies, which is kind of a new part here; rewarding, which is something I haven't heard yet, rewarding vigilance among employees through recognition and performance appraisal system, so that they are not just doing their job, they are getting rewarded for doing these things that go beyond and finding these things; additional ethics training for supervisors and employees. Consideration should also be given to creating a senior level executive position whose primary responsibility is overseeing and managing SSA's fraud detection and prevention efforts. And finally number 6, early in the application process SSA should incorporate clear warnings, stronger warnings to claimants and their representatives about the measures being taken to detect fraud and the consequences of defrauding the disability insurance program. Mr. Chairman, an operation of this magnitude will always be a target of fraud and abuse. We know that. Investing in new analytic tools, integrating and expanding its data sources, fostering a culture of fraud prevention among all employees, and increasing applicant awareness of SSA fraud prevention efforts and the consequences for defrauding the Federal Government will assist SSA in achieving its stated goals and strengthen its antifraud activities and securing the public's trust. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral testimony and I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. [The statement of Mr. Shark follows:] Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Have you provided those suggestions to the administration? Mr. Shark. In my testimony I have. Chairman Johnson. I see. Mr. Shark. Yes. Chairman Johnson. Were you paying attention, Ma'am? Ms. Colvin. Yes. Mr. Shark. She was kicking me in the back. Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Royal, how does Unum identify claimants who may be faking illness, particularly mental illness? Mr. Royal. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that the first line of defense, which is our people who are handling the claims, is key to identifying those fraudulent activities. Our fraud training program, managed by the SIU that I referenced, arms those frontline employees with the education to identify red flags as they are processing claims. And each of the processes that they follow, which do vary by type of disability that you mentioned, is designed to support a fair and thorough analysis of the claim. So for mental illness or behavior health type illnesses, some of those activities might include objective tests for malingering or fabrication, activities check and verification. We also perform records review by our in‑house physicians. And so through that process if red flags are identified, there is encouragement to reach out and refer those claims to the SIU early as possible, because these claims are hard to substantiate at times, they are hard to disprove at times. But it might be worth noting to the committee that behavioral health fraud accounted for about 15 percent of our total fraud last year. The most common is musculoskeletal disease, or neck pain, back pain, joint pain, that accounted for somewhere in the mid‑30 percent. Chairman Johnson. That is the stuff you can't identify, isn't it? How do you screen for bad doctors? Mr. Royal. Well, you don't want to go ‑‑ Chairman Johnson. I don't want to go to one. Mr. Royal. Our going‑in position is that there are not bad doctors, but we know that there are cases of where there are facilitators of fraud. It is a sensitive issue because the escalation of the impact that a facilitator can have is much greater than an individual perpetrator or fraud that is conducting that fraud for one claim over a period of time. So the way that we first prevent against identification of the doctors, for example, would be back to those treating physicians that I mentioned in our claims processes. Those folks are identified as integral antifraud personnel, so they receive the training that we give them to identify those red flags. And what they do in the handling of the claim will have a doc‑to‑doc call. Our own doctors that are educated in fraud awareness, and have the expertise in the field, will reach out and have conversations with treating physicians and discuss the claim and the situation. That puts them in a unique position to identify suspected fraud, and particularly where there is some suspicion around the doctors. And they are trained, the physicians are, to make the referral to the SIU. That has happened, and when we have a referral on a facilitator claim it gets priority. When we will put that doctor into a database. We will search our claims for doctors, common doctors, commonality of doctors, and will allow resources to quickly look at those claims to see if there is additional concern. Chairman Johnson. Thank you. You know, I think using the computers probably helps, doesn't it? Mr. Royal. It does. All the information that we receive on a claim ‑‑ again our process is designed to provide a fair but thorough review of the claim ‑‑ but the information we do receive gets put into our databases. The model, the predictive model that we have developed, considers many attributes when it looks at and daily evaluates these claims. So while the fraud model doesn't necessarily reports on batches of claims, it is designed to look at individual claims in the likelihood that they have potential fraudulent activity. Our fraud analysts that review those high scoring claims are in a much better position than our claims handlers to look across these highly suspicious claims that are being indicated by the model, because that is all they are doing, is they are looking at that and looking for that commonality across those claims. Chairman Johnson. Mr. Zielinski, you all are trying to develop some similar type plan for Social Security, I understand. When will that tool be available for frontline employees? Mr. Zielinski. So, Chairman Johnson, we already have some tools that are available right now. Commissioner Colvin mentioned that for the direct deposit fraud, she was talking about those instances in which we have been able to prevent those through the door. So we already have a number of those tools available. But she also specifically mentioned that utilizing the information from these cases that have already been established in a similar fashion to, as Mr. Royal described, we are going to be doing the same things. We are going to be proving out that model in a short window of time. And we could provide you with specifics for the record as to exactly when we are going to do those things. Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Becerra, you are recognized. Mr. Becerra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of you for your testimony. Mr. Royal, let me ask this, do you find the way Social Security has found that if you invest money on fraud detection, that you have a greater return on the money you spent in having to pay for those fraud busters? Mr. Royal. Congressman, I don't know the specifics of how the Social Security Administration approaches and uses their dollars in terms of their IT spend or predictive analytic spend, but what has worked for us is a model that does continuously screen our claims to identify those that have likely or suspicious fraudulent activity. And while proprietary in specific number, we find that the rate of return on that is very high. And in fact, the referrals that are made to our investigators that come from the model have a much greater likelihood of resulting in the identification of fraudulent activity than the referrals from the front line. But don't get me wrong, the front line is extremely important. They are still the majority of the referrals and account for 70 percent of the ultimate fraud that we detect and report, but that 30 percent that comes from the model those referrals that result in that 30 percent, high likelihood of potential fraud. Mr. Becerra. So, I know that Social Security has indicated in the past that they have a 17 to 1 return, a 9 to 1 return on some of their fraud busting techniques. Sounds like you are seeing similar type results with whatever your techniques are. Mr. Royal. Yes, sir. Mr. Becerra. Great. Mr. Zielinski, can you tell us a little bit more about what the Social Security Administration is doing to prevent the fraud. Because I know there is always the concern that if you don't try to detect it early you have to chase it later on and it is tougher and costs a lot more money. I wonder if you could tell us what you are doing that is similar to the private sector is doing to try to prevent the fraud before it ever occurs. Mr. Zielinski. You bet. Congressman Becerra, there are a few things. Commissioner Colvin mentioned some things already that are more on the business side in terms of the training and other things, so I am going to stick to the IT pieces that we are undertaking. Again, we mentioned the direct deposit fraud. In a very similar fashion as we have identified these cases coming through, we have analysts, and you really do have to rely on those analysts to be able to tell you what they are seeing from the data. We use the data to create scenarios that allow us to recognize those scenarios coming through, and we have prevented very many cases from being paid at all in the first place. Mr. Becerra. That is the predictive technology? Mr. Zielinski. That is the predictive technology, absolutely. What we are also doing from a technology standpoint is we are also working with partners from across the Federal Government. We have met with a number of sources and what we are looking to do is a few things there. We are looking for best practices, but we are also looking for sources of information that are there and readily available. Commissioner Colvin mentioned that we do use information from CMS that we use to recognize for doctors, where there is already a pattern there. So we are looking for those types of data sources. And as we build our models, again we utilize our frontline folks who have knowledge of this to be able to tweak and improve those models over time. We also have prepayment reviews for our disability claims. So we mentioned the CDI units and recognizing those patterns. But even as we are making those medical decisions, there is an additional review that takes place before any payment is issued. So, those are just some of the things that we have done utilizing technology and being able to select and sample and score for the probability of error or problem to prevent those cases from taking place. Mr. Becerra. And I had posed the question to Commissioner Colvin previously, but I wonder if you could give us your take. In the legislation that we introduced today, we do call for an increase in financial penalties that would be assessed by Social Security for fraud committed by people who should know better than to engage in that activity. Do you think that would be helpful to SSA as it goes about the process of detecting fraud? Mr. Zielinski. Well certainly, sir, any tools that we have in our tool belt that would help us to combat and deter, and Commissioner Colvin mentioned that once people see the strengths of those penalties it is something that serves as additional deterrent, and I echo what she told you earlier. Mr. Becerra. What about the issue of banning practitioners who engage in these bad practices, a doctor who knowingly submits fraudulent medical documentation so that someone can qualify to receive these disability benefits? Should we ban those doctors from being able to participate in giving us evidence that helps determine whether someone is disabled or not? Mr. Zielinski. Well, certainly from the IT perspective, the more information that we have in and about any of the players that are in the process, it is a valuable and valid information. And that sort of information really allows us to be able to stop some of those things at the front door. So those are effective deterrents and can be used in an IT model to help prevent those things. Mr. Becerra. Thank you all for your testimony. And by the way, because I have referenced that bad doctor, but it is not just doctors, and the Chairman and I were discussing this. We should go after anyone along that chain of the process who engages in this type of activity that ultimately takes money away from the taxpayers. I wouldn't use as colorful language as the Chairman has used, but I think we all agree, every one of us agree that we should descend on any of these folks who are perpetrating this kind of fraudulent activity to folks who paid their tax dollars to get these benefits in the future. Thank you all for your testimony. Mr. Renacci, you are recognized. Mr. Renacci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would to thank you all for your testimony today. Dr. Shark, you mentioned six recommendations. Can you narrow those down to maybe two or three which would cover the low‑hanging fruit that maybe the Social Security could be doing? Mr. Shark. Well, I think they are moving in the right direction. I can narrow it down to two. One is the human factor and the ability for that frontline person, which has been I think well described as the gatekeeper who is going to see something coming in, they are going to see the most suspicious thing at the very beginning. The second part is more problematic, and that is the technology piece. You know we are talking about where we really want to be, and to me it is how do we get to a point, and at what point will that be? Will it be in the year 2015, will it be this year? In other words, what is the ultimate road map? To me every application should be screened and tested based on these different models. They should not be flagged red. They should be done green, red, yellow, different kind of things for different kind of deficiencies that may be found and to be totally integrated into the culture. And so what I am hearing is these fixes, but I am not hearing this timeline of when this will happen, whether it will be a totally integrated system that will review things. In the report I read there are 54 databases that is being consolidated into one. That will go a long way in helping. But ultimately I think it is, like, what is this vision? And the technology vision is we have to use predictive analytics. We have to use things to plot what is going on and where, to look at the chain of interactions so that technology can help us and pinpoint things before they occur or slightly thereafter. And it is that blueprint that I am not seeing yet. I am seeing some really good fixes, but I am not seeing that longer term this is where we want to be and this is what it is going to look like. Mr. Renacci. Mr. Zielinski, I know you have talked about more money and I want to remind you what happened with Social Security concerning IT money. Since fiscal year 2001, Social Security stockpiled over $1.3 billion in an information technology reserve fund of unspent money. The Congress agreed on a bipartisan basis to rescind $500 million. And again, that might predate you and might predate the Acting Commissioner, so I am trying to find out ‑‑ it appears back then there was not this push for IT. Why weren't those dollars spent? And what would make us believe that if you had those dollars you would spend them today, since you already had them? Mr. Zielinski. So Congressman, I appreciate the question. I don't have specifics as to why those funds were not spent. I was not involved in the discussions or the decisions, so unfortunately, I can't answer that question for you. I will say that Commissioner Colvin has taken a much more specific approach towards strategic planning, and I think as we are moving forward the types of plans that Mr. Shark talks about in putting in place, those are the things on which we are focused so that we will be able to show and demonstrate precisely where we are making those investments and how we are going to spend those dollars and to what purposes, which areas within our mission those are going to be spent. So Commissioner Colvin has mentioned in her written testimony about the strategic planning that we are doing now, and in fact we are engaged with NAPA in some of that strategic planning. And those are the sorts of things that we will see in that plan. So, you know I have confidence and I believe that we have ‑‑ the commissioner is really pushing forward with that strategic planning. Mr. Renacci. Okay. One of the thing I noted in an audit raised some questions about the data, Social Security's data, including the fact that you have multiple databases. How many databases does Social Security have? How connected are they and what challenge do you have in creating and implementing, you know, data analytics based on all of that? Mr. Zielinski. So I can't answer the specific question. I don't have the exact number of databases. We have a series of databases. Some are called master files. Those are ones from which we issue payments and maintain systems programs. And then there are other databases specifically to processing the workloads. In terms of being able to bring data together, there is a lot of technology that is available today that allows us to be able to bring data from multiple sources together to be able to combine that in ways for specifically these reasons. So, we are using tools today, pulling data from many different locations, bringing that together to be able to do the data analytics. So, the challenge isn't necessarily in and around the number of databases, it is really again getting back to having the analytical support, really knowing what patterns we are looking for and being able to implement that, sir. Mr. Renacci. Dr. Shark, one last question. Looking from the outside in, are we doing enough for training of our frontline staff to detect this fraud? Mr. Shark. Well, absent technology, probably not. I think they are doing the best they can with the tools they have today. The only thing I would add to that is kind of think in a creative way some better rewards for those people up front because they are so important. Everyone acknowledges that. And the question is what can we do more to empower them to really feel emboldened, to look for things to be very, very vigilant and careful. Because they are our first line. So the missing piece is what kind of reward can we give them? We are not talking about money here, but we are talking about recognition. Part of their review process, maybe something on their wall. But something to really show how important these people are to us. Mr. Renacci. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Chairman Johnson. Do you care to question? Mr. Kelly. Yeah, just real quick, because I am really interested how it happens in the private sector. And I know there is quite an incentive to do it differently in the private sector, because it really determines whether you continue in the private sector or go and change direction with what you are going to do with the rest of the your life. Mr. Shark, you made a references to it, and I think Mr. Royal. I was looking at the size of your company. You work with 175,000 businesses worldwide and you cover more than 22 million people. I am looking at how you do that. I mean, I think because we are talking now about do we need to increase funding to SSA to help them do their job or can we somehow slim it down to a point where they are actually more effective. And I know there are things we can talk about later on about how we are going to do that. But from a private sector, what you do see? Mr. Renacci just said from the outside in. What do you see that if you were taking over and you were the CEO just walking into this business, what would be the first thing that you would look at? And I think data analytics are absolutely critical. What would be the number one thing? I don't think we need to keep throwing money at it. I think we need to learn to live with less, do more with less, but technology is the answer to that, is it not? Mr. Royal. Congressman Kelly, I think that is a big opportunity. I think that we are all asked to do more with less. I am asked that every year, every quarter when I meet with folks, and I think the predictive analytics tool, while it requires investment, does provide that broad coverage of looking at claims. It looks at the subtle changes in claims as information comes in. Things that the claims handlers can't necessarily see. There are some things that they can see that a computer model can't, and vice versa. So I think that there is an opportunity that with the use of that technology to get that broader coverage. Mr. Kelly. So when you make an investment, you are going to make an investment but you want to get a real positive return on the investment, could Social Security do the same thing? Every year you go into a bid process and you have to earn the people who work with you, the people that you contract with, you have to earn their business. But we don't have that same model and this is not a knock at SSA, this is just the way it works. But we do have the ability to really cull this down, make it more effective and more efficient. There is no reason why we can't do this, is there? Mr. Royal. Well, the profile obviously of the business is different. We offer a number of different products and that carries different challenges in them. I think that there are opportunities to take those opportunities, and one of those opportunities is maintaining a healthy collaboration between the public and the private sector. Private disability has an opportunity to take some of the burden off of governmental programs by providing income replacement early on in the process so they are not having to look for other safety net programs, and the private disability insurance companies also help to promote return to work so that they actually get on ‑‑they are on the rolls less of a time. So not only is there efficiencies in the organization, but efficiencies working together from a industry, public and private, that will increase the overall economic welfare valuable of disability insurance. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Shark, then, how do you incentivize from the Social Security level? How would you incentivize the people that are on the staff? What you would use? I know for Mr. Royal it is you keep your job. But for people in SSA how do you do that? What makes that person come to work every day, throw their feet out over of the bed, getting up and getting dressed and going to work and want to go to work, and know that there is a light at the end of the tunnel? How would SSA do that? Mr. Shark. Well, I think they are in a better position to answer that than I would. But from the outside looking in, I would say that ‑‑ you know, people love recognition. If I can't get a raise, how can I be recognized? And if that is part of your job description, that is what they are supposed to be doing to begin with. So there is an expectation. But going beyond the norm, there could be some levels of recognition that might be an award, some kind of thing they would put on their wall, some kind of thing that goes into their review process, it could lead to a promotion, and they should be the champions, also the ones training others when they have found something. So it is kind of giving them the incentive through ego recognition for their performance. Mr. Kelly. That is the answer. It is ego. Mr. Shark. Yes. Mr. Kelly. I mean, compensation is one thing. Mr. Shark. Yes. Mr. Kelly. But recognition for doing a good job is a lot more important. Mr. Shark. And we take that for granted, because we know what we can't do. We know we cannot give them a financial raise, but this is something that can be done. Mr. Kelly. My experience since I have been here 3 years, we bring these folks in here. We all work together. We work for the same people. Mr. Shark. Yeah. Mr. Kelly. And all of a sudden we get out this hammer and start beating them: You are not doing the right job, you are not doing the right job. Mr. Shark. Yeah. Mr. Kelly. So whenever they commit like we are doing today, how can we work with you? Mr. Shark. Yeah. Mr. Kelly. What can we do to help you be better at what you do? Because if we do that, then the American people win. Mr. Shark. Yes. Mr. Kelly. It has nothing to do with Congress beating down the SSA or taking people who we think are doing a fraudulent thing. It is a matter of getting it to a point where the taxpayer gets the best return on his or her investment. It is incredibly important. Mr. Shark. Right. Mr. Kelly. So I agree with you. In my business, recognition by far. Mr. Shark. I do the same. Mr. Kelly. Compensation only goes so far. Mr. Shark. Yes. Mr. Kelly. Recognition lasts a lot longer. Mr. Shark. Yes. Mr. Kelly. So that is one of the things that perhaps SSA could take out of this meeting, or could talk with you. But I do, I want to thank you all for being here. This is incredibly important. What I always keep going back to, I think there is a disconnect when it comes to the Government. The people I represent back home say the Government needs to do this. Well, the Government works for you. You have to switch that around and understand the revenue comes from hard‑working American taxpayers. That is who funds everything. We have to give them a better return on their investment. So, Mr. Chairman, thanks for having this meeting and all of you, thanks so much for what you do. SSA, good to have you here again with us today. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. I think this was a good meeting and I appreciate you staying here. And you too, Commissioner. You have heard these panels and we appreciate the testimony. I think now that the subcommittee has examined and provided feedback to Social Security's plans to stop crimes against the taxpayers, I think the Commissioner will make her plan implementation one of her top priorities, which she already has done. I think the American people deserve nothing less. I hope we can stop the fraud that goes on in this agency and grab it by its roots. And I appreciate you being here today, all of you. Thank you. And the committee stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] |
|||||||||||||||||||