Front Page  »  

CalPERS purging illegitimate claimants

August 23, 2013

calPERSTens of thousands of people are receiving benefits improperly from CalPERS, the nation’s second-largest health insurance provider, officials of which have announced a series of detailed audits to stem the problem. (Sacramento Bee)

The insurer believes that at least 22,000 individuals are getting monthly benefits to which they are not entitled.

Some of these recipients are on rolls fraudulently, CalPERS officials suggested, and some are on by mistake. In either case, they will be purged following completion of the audits.

State employees will be asked to confidentially submit proof of dependent relationships.

During an earlier 90-day amnesty, 5,000 subscribers voluntarily removed 6,722 people from plans, saving the insurer an expected $41 million annually.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What’s the big deal, every time they cash a paycheck it’s grand larceny.


0

I know a retired local prison guard who got married to a woman who had an 18 year old daughter and 22 year old son. He put both those adult children on his medical insurance at a cost of only $5.00 per month.. I wondered how he could do that as they were not his children and they were both adults. The 22 year old boy used to see all sorts of doctors and then sell his prescription drugs for spending money because he didn’t work.


Compliments from us taxpayers less the $5.00 a month. Disgusting, I should have reported them for illegal insurance benefits.


0

Yeah, did you like the “5,000 subscribers voluntarily removed 6,722 people from plans, saving the insurer an expected $41 million annually” part? I read that as another form of amnesty, or rewarding liars, cheats and thieves.


I say go after the ones the audit finds, regardless of whether they “voluntarily” removed illegal dependents. Then again, I always hope that elected officials and bureaucrats are held accountable when they break the laws they impose on us. I can dream, can’t I?


0

Don’t get too excited. They will not be saving $41,000 million annually.


Many of the dependents voluntarily removed are ones that moved on and had their own insurance, and had just not been removed from the Pers rolls. The removal program offered an easy way to go ahead and take these people off the insurance, so that the primary payer didn’t have to pay the extra costs for insuring them. But , if non eligible dependents used Pers for major medical expenses, then that’s fraud, and should be investigated.


0

WOW. From what I have read, people have signed up family members (sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews, left spouses on after divorces, etc.) and the taxpayers are paying for them. Isn’t this criminal and since the 90 day amnesty period is over, shouldn’t they be billed for illegal use of services. This is called fraud!


0

Well at least some of these people have contributed to the system while all of the deadbeats are getting full coverage with no contributions at all. Society is more and more becoming an environment of cheaters and thiefs and it appears for the most part it’s acceptable unless someone catches you who thinks that they too may be able to make a buck off of their efforts.


0

Must be the great “role” models we have in government, banking, real estate and the clergy.


0

“no such thing as society“


0

Nice link; always good to see a reference to the female version of Ronald Reagan …


0

Great quote, zaphod! We could all learn from the Iron Lady! Here’s the FULL quote, so it’s not cheaply taken out of context:

They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation”


0

Yes, but their contributions are far less than the system is paying out, hence the reason for stealing from the taxpayers for the shortage. If the system was made to stand on it’s own that would be a different story


0