Michigan Introduces Welfare Police Bill
The scope of the first Bill was to create a welfare policing force, to be placed in local HHS offices to arrest, on the spot, individuals who were found to engage in welfare fraud.
As to the authority to make the determination of fraud, it was left up in the air to be arbitrary and capricous.
The Bill died.
Now comes another Bill which actually constructs an actual law enforcement mechanism to go after fraud, but, of course, I have concerns and here they are:
(1) Will this new OIG have powers and authority to go after Medicaid fraud in child welfare and if so, will they have direct access to the case files?
(2) Will Michigan start to enforce contract compliance for privatized, not-for-profit, religious child welfare organizations by:
(a) contractual disbarment;
(b) sanctions, license revocation;
(c) creation of an eclusionary database;
(d) criminal and/or civil prosecution;
(e) recovery;
(f) administrative remedies;
(g) mandatory referral and collaboration to the attorney general Medicaid Fraud Control Unit;
(h) expansion of authority and powers of the MFCU to include child welfare;
(i) enforcement of federal grant compliance;
(j) some form of memorandum of understanding with U.S. HHS and DOJ;
(j) some form of memorandum of understanding with U.S. HHS and DOJ;
(k) clarification of the differences between public and private property, specifically referring to private and public state contractors.
If the State continues the formation of policies to directly target individual consumers of state services, then it is sadly mistaken as to the scope of the problems with fraud.
If this Bill is to target the contractual entities of cost reimbursement of its DHHS contractors, then I am its biggest cheerleader.
At this juncture, I have no comment on my position until I hear back from lawmakers.
I must note that the warrantless arrests are supported under the Fouth Amendment federal court rulings as long as the warrantless arrests are executed on public property or under exigent circumstances.
As for the firearm provision, it is redundant. Utilize state and local law enforcement. Provide a special MCOLES training.
White collar, or in this situation, blue collar workers and the disabled tend not to be violent when trying to apply for food assistance.
In relation to the cost analysis, I do not believe legal was included in its calculation because we should all expect litigation upon its passage.
I believe the $300,000 to $400,000 start up costs would be better spent going to the expansion of the MFCU.
No comments:
Post a Comment