fraud detection and deterrence in workers compensation
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Fraud Detection and Deterrence in Workers’ Compensation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 46

Fraud Detection and Deterrence in Workers Compensation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 601 Views
  • Uploaded on

Fraud Detection and Deterrence in Workers’ Compensation. Richard A. Derrig, PhD, CFE President Opal Consulting, LLC Visiting Scholar, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. PCIA Joint Marketing and Underwriting Seminar March 18-20, 2007. Insurance Fraud- The Problem.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Fraud Detection and Deterrence in Workers Compensation' - tate


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
fraud detection and deterrence in workers compensation

Fraud Detection and Deterrence in Workers’ Compensation

Richard A. Derrig, PhD, CFE

President Opal Consulting, LLC

Visiting Scholar, Wharton School,

University of Pennsylvania

PCIA Joint Marketing and Underwriting Seminar

March 18-20, 2007

insurance fraud the problem
Insurance Fraud- The Problem
  • ISO/IRC 2001 Study: Auto and Workers Compensation Fraud a Big Problem by 27% of Insurers.
  • CAIF: Estimation (too large)
  • Mass IFB: 1,500 referrals annually for Auto, WC, and (10%) Other P-L.
fraud definition
Fraud Definition

PRINCIPLES

  • Clear and willful act
  • Proscribed by law
  • Obtaining money or value
  • Under false pretenses

Abuse: Fails one or more Principles

slide5

10%

Fraud

real problem claim fraud
REAL PROBLEM-CLAIM FRAUD
  • Classify all claims
  • Identify valid classes
    • Pay the claim
    • No hassle
    • Visa Example
  • Identify (possible) fraud
    • Investigation needed
  • Identify “gray” classes
    • Minimize with “learning” algorithms
company automation data mining
Company Automation - Data Mining
  • Data Mining/Predictive Modeling Automates Record Reviews
  • No Data Mining without Good Clean Data (90% of the solution)
  • Insurance Policy and Claim Data; Business and Demographic Data
  • Data Warehouse/Data Mart
  • Data Manipulation – Simple First; Complex Algorithms When Needed
slide10

FRAUD IDENTIFICATION

  • Experience and Judgment
  • Artificial Intelligence Systems
    • Regression & Tree Models
    • Fuzzy Clusters
    • Neural Networks
    • Expert Systems
    • Genetic Algorithms
    • All of the Above
potential value of an artificial intelligence scoring system
POTENTIAL VALUE OF AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SCORING SYSTEM
  • Screening to Detect Fraud Early
  • Auditing of Closed Claims to Measure Fraud
  • Sorting to Select Efficiently among Special Investigative Unit Referrals
  • Providing Evidence to Support a Denial
  • Protecting against Bad-Faith
prosecution study mass ifb data 1990 2000
Prosecution Study Mass. IFB Data 1990-2000
  • 17,274 Referrals; 59% auto, 31% wc, 35% accepted for investigation.
  • 3,349 Cases, i.e. one or more related accepted referrals.
  • 552 Cases were referred for prosecution;293 cases had prosecution completed.
prosecution study mass ifb data 1990 200018
Prosecution Study Mass. IFB Data 1990-2000
  • Case Outcomes: No Prosecution (CNP)

Prosecution Denied (PD), Prosecution Completed (PC)

  • Auto Cases: 1,156 CNP,50 PD,121PC
  • WC Claim: 524 CNP,40 PD, 82PC
  • WC Premium: 70 CNP, 9 PD, 34PC
subjects prosecuted
Subjects Prosecuted
  • 543 subjects were prosecuted
  • 399 were claimants/insureds
  • 65 were insureds only
  • 46 were professionals associated with the insurance system as company personnel or service providers
prosecution findings
Prosecution Findings
  • Guilty or Equivalent – 84%
  • Pled Guilty – 55%
  • Continued without a Finding – 19%
  • Not Guilty – 8%
  • Not Disposed (Fled) – 3%
  • Other (e.g. filed) – 5%
fraudsters
Fraudsters
  • Prior Convictions – 51%
  • Prior Property Conviction – 9.6%
  • Subsequent Offenses – 29% +
  • Subsequent Offense Prior to End of Fraud Sentence – 19% +
  • Conclusion: These are general purpose criminals not career insurance fraudsters!
criminal fraud deterrence
Criminal Fraud Deterrence
  • General Deterrence – Mixed results
  • Specific Deterrence – Good Results
  • Big Deterrence – There is nothing comparable to the “Lawrence Deterrent”
insurance fraud bureau of massachusetts
Insurance Fraud Bureau of Massachusetts
  • 2003 Lawrence Staged Accident Results In Death
  • IFB Joined w/Lawrence P.D and Essex County DA’s Office to form 1st Task Force
insurance fraud bureau of massachusetts24
Insurance Fraud Bureau of Massachusetts

Results 2005-2006

  • Total Cases referred to Pros. 244
  • Total Individuals Charged 528
types of fraud

TYPES OF FRAUD

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Employee Fraud

-Working While Collecting

-Staged Accidents

-Prior or Non-Work Injuries

Employer Fraud

-Misclassification of Employees

-Understating Payroll

-Employee Leasing

-Re-Incorporation to Avoid Mod

non criminal fraud deterrence workers compensation
NON-Criminal Fraud Deterrence Workers Compensation
  • General Deterrence – DIA, Med, Att Government Oversight
  • Specific Deterrence – Company Auditor, Data, Predictive Modeling,

Employer Incentives (Mod, Schd Rate)

  • Big Deterrence – None, Little Study, NY Fiscal Policy Institute (2007)

CA SIU Regulations (2006)

fraud indicators validation procedures
FRAUD INDICATORSVALIDATION PROCEDURES
  • Canadian Coalition Against Insurance Fraud (1997) 305 Fraud Indicators (45 vehicle theft)
  • “No one indicator by itself is necessarily suspicious”.
  • Problem: How to validate the systematic use of Fraud Indicators?
underwriting red flags
Underwriting Red Flags
  • Prior Claims History (Mod)
  • High Mod versus Low Premium
  • Increases/Decreases in Payroll
  • Changes of Operation
  • Loss Prevention Visits
  • Preliminary Physical Audits
  • Check Yellow Pages
  • Check Websites
claims red flags
Claims Red Flags
  • Description of Accident vs. Underwriting Description of Operation
  • Description of Employment
    • Length of Services/Supervisor
    • Pay
    • Kind of Work
  • Copies of Payroll Checks
  • Claims vs. Payroll
auditing red flags
Auditing Red Flags
  • Be Aware of Prepared Documents
  • Check Original Files
  • Check Loss Reports
  • Check Class Distribution
  • Estimated Payroll Compared to Audited Payroll
  • Prior Claims
  • Changes of Operations
slide32

POLICY

Estimated Premium

Audited /Adjusted Premium

slide33

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PREMIUM TERMINOLOGY

  • Payroll - All Compensation
  • Classification Rate - Based on Type of Job (Risk of Injury)
  • Mod - Multiplier Based on Claims History
slide34

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PREMIUM FORMULA

  • Payroll x Classification Code x Experience Mod
types of premium fraud
TYPES OF PREMIUM FRAUD
  • Payroll Misrepresentation
  • Classification Misrepresentation
  • Modification Avoidance
case study lanco scaffolding
Case Study – Lanco Scaffolding

Lanco Representations

  • Small scaffolding operation
  • Limited accounting records
  • Outside accountant prepared and possessed tax records
  • Premium of $28,000
slide41

AUDIT PROCESS

  • Auditor spends 2-3 hours on site, reviewing records provided by the insured (payroll, tax records, jobs)
  • Auditor compares these with insurance records (claims history, prior audits, loss prevention reports)
insurance records
INSURANCE RECORDS
  • Audit Reports

-Work Papers

-Supporting Documents from Insured

  • Claim/Loss Runs
  • Underwriting Documents

-Agent

-Insured

  • Loss Prevention Reports
slide43

**ACME INSURANCE COMPANY**

AUDIT FOR POLICY #12345678

Effective date: 4/1/04

Employees: (?)

SALARY

CLASS CODE

NAME?

SSN?

8227

$55,899.00

8742

$107,939.00

8810

$76,014.00

9403

$102,956.00

BAD AUDIT

good audit

**ACME INSURANCE COMPANY**

AUDIT FOR POLICY #12345678

INSURED: DD Waste Haulers

Effective date: 4/1/04

Auditor:

J. Martini

CLASS CODE

NAME

SSN

SALARY-1993

8227

Joseph Kennedy

015-73-2521

$29,012.00

8742

Joe Phelan

034-54-7861

$28,447.00

8742

Matthew Franks

022-43-6677

$39,218.00

8810

Roberta Martines

025-48-3465

$21,554.00

8810

Theodore Daniels

038-64-7344

$27,995.00

9403

Richard Collins

547-88-3195

$41,887.00

9403

Steve Cane

522-94-5985

$26,558.00

9403

Paul Young

012-66-4935

$34,511.00

GOOD AUDIT
siu involvement
SIU INVOLVEMENT
  • What is the Issue?
  • Referrals can be Optimized
  • Review Company Files
  • Surveillance
  • Interview Agent
  • Interview Insured
  • Interact with Fraud Bureau
references
REFERENCES
  • Canadian Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, (1997) Red Flags for Detecting Insurance Fraud, 1-33.
  • Derrig, Richard A. and Krauss, Laura K., (1994), First Steps to Fight Workers\' Compensation Fraud, Journal of Insurance Regulation, 12:390-415.
  • Derrig, Richard A., Johnston, Daniel J. and Sprinkel, Elizabeth A., (2006), Risk Management & Insurance Review, 9:2, 109–130.
  • Derrig, Richard A., (2002), Insurance Fraud, Journal of Risk and Insurance, 69:3, 271-289.
  • Derrig, Richard A., and Zicko, Valerie, (2002), Prosecuting Insurance Fraud – A Case Study of the Massachusetts Experience in the 1990s, Risk Management and Insurance Review, 5:2, 7-104
  • Francis, Louise and Derrig, Richard A., (2006) Distinguishing the Forest from the TREES: A Comparison of Tree Based Data Mining Methods, Casualty Actuarial Forum, Winter, pp.1-49.
  • Johnston, Daniel J., (1997) Combating Fraud: Handcuffing Fraud Impacts Benefits, Assurances, 65:2, 175-185.
  • Rempala, G.A., and Derrig, Richard A., (2003), Modeling Hidden Exposures in Claim Severity via the EM Algorithm, North American Actuarial Journal, 9(2), pp.108-128.
ad