Tag Archives: employee fraud

Immediate Vault Immediate Access

Identifying and Preventing Provider Fraud in Workers Comp Cases

Posted on by

Claimant fraud and premium fraud are two of the most well-known types of workers compensation fraud. In these cases, a worker may intentionally fake an injury (claimant fraud) or a business owner may misrepresent their employee headcount or incorrectly classify employees to obtain lower insurance premiums. Now, a lesser-known type is occurring with greater frequency: provider fraud.

Provider fraud occurs when a professional other than the injured worker or employer accepts a bribe or illegal kick-back in exchange for patient or client referrals. The circle of potential culprits includes lawyers, translators, doctors, chiropractors, nurses, and telehealth professionals. Opportunity, incentive and rationalization—the “fraud triangle”—are key factors that go into a person’s decision to commit insurance fraud. These factors have been exacerbated in recent years, due in large part to the pressures presented by the global pandemic and the growing reliance upon remote services.

Most schemes involve knowingly billing for medical goods and medical and legal services that are unnecessary or not provided at all. A chiropractor, for example, conducted illegal medical evaluations and billed these evaluations, claiming that he was approved as a medical legal evaluator. In another example, an attorney named his daughter as the owner of a translation services company, while in reality he maintained ownership of the business. Each time the attorney was hired, the translation business was also engaged and billed its services. Provider fraud is increasingly prevalent in California and Florida due to each state’s workers comp rules. For instance, in California, a provider can file their own lien with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, even if the bill was denied. California is the only state that allows providers to file their own adjudication. At a higher rate than in other states, healthcare providers in California and Florida are sometimes found billing for services that were never rendered, billing for more expensive services than were actually provided, ordering unnecessary tests or procedures, and providing kickbacks to referring physicians.

So, how can we pin down provider fraud?

  • Review Provider Invoices and Reports: Risk professionals can spot potential fraud cases and fraud trends by closely reviewing provider invoices and reports and scrutinizing those invoices that are close to, but not at the top of, typical billing charges. In the workers compensation system, there are typically five levels of a doctor evaluation: Level 1 is the cheapest while Level 5 is the most expensive. Fraud often occurs in Level 4 billings since Level 5 would be too obvious. Providers who consistently bill at Level 4 could be a red flag for fraud.
  • Shine a Spotlight on Supplementary Services: Insurers sometimes overlook that provider fraud can occur with supplementary services such as translation and transportation companies, copy services, medical equipment suppliers and pharmacies. It is not uncommon for insurers to discover that these schemes may involve a criminal enterprise (possibly a referral network) orchestrated by individuals who are not medical or legal professionals. While claimants can be complicit, often they are unwittingly involved and potentially subject to treatment that is unnecessary or even harmful. 
  • Consider Emerging Tech to Pinpoint Provider Fraud: Artificial intelligence and machine learning are game-changers for fraud investigations. Through the analysis of historical claims data and insurance adjuster notes, some technologies can help professionals discover fraudulent claims faster. For instance, AI can be particularly effective at the entity level when a doctor or hospital that is identified as fraudulent can be added to a “bad actors” list for review in future claims. If you do not have a fraud feedback loop, start gathering information now. As risk and insurance professionals, we rely on business rules and claims adjusters to catch all the details of a claim and then form a cohesive narrative to investigate. While business rules work, the fraud feedback loop is necessary to effectively train machine learning models to detect patterns and flag anomalies.

Workers compensation insurance provider fraud has become a multi-billion-dollar industry that is bad for business. It is costly for insurance companies to identify and prosecute, it inflates costs for goods and services that honest business owners rely on, and it stokes consumer apathy and distrust in the insurance system. Risk and insurance professionals need to be aware of the warning signs so they can work diligently to detect and prevent it.

Mitigating Payment Fraud Risks

Posted on by

For businesses that thrive on person-to-person transactions, cash is quickly being replaced by cards, as well as tap-to-pay systems, mobile wallets and QR-based payment systems. These technologies will continue to dominate the market in the near future, but the long-term future of the payment card industry will likely be shaped by the impact of blockchain and artificial intelligence. These developments will eventually also impact risk management, marketing and financial planning, as they present opportunities for serious risks, including fraud. Hence, it is imperative for risk management professionals to plan for these short- and long-term changes in the industry.

Strong risk monitoring requires proactively assessing threats and planning mitigation measures to minimize risk impact on the company or organization. To help mitigate payment fraud risks, businesses can take the following steps:

Train your Employees Regularly

The more regularly you train your employees, the more likely are they to spot suspicious behavior, no matter what payment technology the business uses. Repeated and regular trainings are essential because employees tend to forget what they have learned with time. These training workshops should teach the workers to never accept damaged cards from customers, confirm customer identities, and never enter a card number manually.

Use Contactless and EMV-Enabled Terminals

As payment technology changes, businesses must evaluate what options are safest and least prone to fraud. Currently, businesses should use EMV (short for Europay, Mastercard and Visa), which involves chips embedded into payment cards—a significant step in making transactions safer. The introduction and adoption of EMV-enabled secure terminals, particularly when using PIN and EMV security together, has helped merchants and customers prevent fraudulent transactions.

Contactless smartcards such as chip and magnetic stripe cards use contactless payment, which can present another secure way to process transactions. Most EMV terminals are also enabled with contactless payment. At such terminals, a fast and secure transaction is possible using Near Field Communication (NFC) or Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) via smartcard or smartphone. If a merchant chooses to use contactless payment without PIN, they can put a limit to the amount spent on each contactless transaction to further minimize risk.

Beware Uncommon Transactions

Transactions that involve unusually large purchases could be a sign of potential fraud. Businesses should examine such transactions closely and confirm the identity of the customer. Similarly, if several purchases are made with a card in a short timeframe, it could indicate that the card was stolen and being used by someone other than the owner.

Maintain Online Security

As merchants and consumers shift to contactless and EMV-enabled point of sale terminals, risk has shifted towards online transactions. To mitigate this risk, it is important for online businesses to use the Address Verification Service (AVS), which verifies that the billing information matches the one registered with the card issuer. Vendors should also ask for Card Verification Value 2 (CVV2) to verify that the user has the card in hand when placing the order. Another important check is to put a limit on an IP address for the number of cards it can use for online transactions.

Prevent Employee Fraud

Employee fraud is always a major concern for risk management professionals.  Businesses should remember to keep an eye on credit card activity, particularly returns, as employee theft often shows up in fake discounts or returns. Companies should create alerts that set limits on returns at stores and notify management any time those limits are exceeded.

Strategies to Prevent Internal Fraud

Posted on by

As employees can be key perpetrators of fraud, creating and implementing best practices with regard to insiders is a key part of an enterprise’s everyday risk management procedures. For example, developing internal controls that involve multiple layers of review for financial transactions, and arranging independent reviews of the company’s financial records can prevent malfeasance, detect ongoing fraud and prevent it from continuing.

buy atarax online iddocs.net/images/photoalbum/gif/atarax.html no prescription pharmacy

In fact, according to Kroll’s 2019 Global Fraud and Risk Report, businesses discovered insider fraud by conducting internal audits 38% of the time, through external audits 20% of the time and from whistleblowers 11% of the time.

Technology solutions provider Column Case Investigative recently examined five common types of fraud that businesses face, including employees falsifying their timesheets to steal money from the company, taking intellectual property or passing off counterfeit items as genuine, funneling money away from vendors to themselves, or soliciting favors or compensation from clients or vendors for preferential treatment. These tactics can impact a company’s profits and expose it to possible litigation, but also pose risk to its reputation with customers and partners, as well as its competitiveness.

buy zantac online iddocs.net/images/photoalbum/gif/zantac.html no prescription pharmacy

To best mitigate these risks, the provider recommended that companies do their due diligence in the hiring process to detect any warning signs that applicants may have a motive to commit fraud. To limit intellectual property theft and misuse, they should limit access to important information and materials.

buy robaxin online iddocs.net/images/photoalbum/gif/robaxin.html no prescription pharmacy

Enterprises can also create clear ethical standards for employee conduct and a positive culture in which workers are happier, more committed to the company and more comfortable reporting fraud when they see or suspect it happening.

Check out the infographic below for more best practices to mitigate employee fraud risks:

Fraud Incidents Rise in 2016, Kroll Finds

Posted on by

Reports of fraud have risen in the past year. In fact, incidences of every type of fraud have reached double-digit levels, according to the Kroll Global Fraud & Risk Report 2016/2017. Overall, 82% of executives reported falling victim to at least one instance of fraud in the past year, up from 75% in 2015.

Theft of physical assets remained the most prevalent type of fraud in the last year, reported by 29% of respondents, up 7 percentage points from 22% of respondents in the last survey. Kroll reported that vendor, supplier, or procurement fraud (26%) and information theft, loss, or attack (24%) were the next two most common types of fraud cited, each up 9 percentage points year-over-year.

Kroll found that most threats come from within an organization, with current and ex-employees being the most frequently cited perpetrators of fraud, cyber, and security incidents over the past 12 months. External parties were also identified as active perpetrators.

In the United States:
Kroll-fraud

• On the complexity of fraud risks, the majority (60%) of executives who reported suffering fraud incidents identified some combination of perpetrators, including current employees, ex-employees, and third parties, with almost half (49%) involving all three groups.

• Almost four in 10 respondents (39%) who were victims experienced fraud perpetrated by a junior employee, 30% by senior or middle management, 27% by ex-employees, and 27% by freelance/temporary employees. Agents and/or intermediaries were also cited by 27% of respondents as involved in carrying out fraud.

• Insiders were cited as the main perpetrators of fraud, and also identified as the most likely to discover it. Almost half (44%) of respondents said that recent fraud had been discovered through a whistleblowing system and 39% said it had been detected through an internal audit.

Among anti-fraud measures, the widest adoption—reported by 82% of executives surveyed—focused on information, such as IT security and technical countermeasures. The converse of the finding is concerning: nearly one out of five respondents (18%) have not adopted such protections.
kroll fraud risk

According to the report:

80% of respondents in the U.S. experienced fraud in the past 12 months, an increase of 5 percentage points on the previous year. This figure is 2 percentage points below the reported global average of 82%. Intellectual property (IP) theft, piracy, or counterfeiting is a clear threat to companies in the U.S., which was reported by just over a quarter (27%) of U.S. participants, almost twice the reported global average. The U.S. was the only country where IP theft was the most common type of fraud reported. Information theft, loss, or attack was the second most mentioned type of fraud impacting companies in the U.S., followed by conflicts of interest in the management team. The main perpetrators of fraud were reported to be insiders. Where fraud had been discovered, 36% of executives in the U.S. reported that junior employees were responsible, and 32% named senior or middle management. Respondents in the U.S. were most likely to have adopted IT security measures, followed by financial controls and asset security as their top three ways to mitigate fraud risk. In the U.S., the most common way fraud was detected was not through a whistle-blower, as it was for most of the other countries surveyed, but through an internal audit. Nearly half (49%) of U.S. participants said it was the most common detection mechanism.