Electronic Fraud Detection in the U.S. Medicaid Healthcare Program: Lessons Learned from other Industries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is estimated that between $600 and $850 billion annually is lost to fraud, waste, and abuse in the US healthcare system,with $125 to $175 billion of this due to fraudulent activity (Kelley 2009). Medicaid, a state-run, federally-matchedgovernment program which accounts for roughly one-quarter of all healthcare expenses in the US, has been particularlysusceptible targets for fraud in recent years. With escalating overall healthcare costs, payers, especially government-runprograms, must seek savings throughout the system to maintain reasonable quality of care standards. As such, the need foreffective fraud detection and prevention is critical. Electronic fraud detection systems are widely used in the insurance,telecommunications, and financial sectors. What lessons can be learned from these efforts and applied to improve frauddetection in the Medicaid health care program? In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature study to analyze theapplicability of existing electronic fraud detection techniques in similar industries to the US Medicaid program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".