Employee audit saves state $4 million in 2012

A final audit report shows Minnesota will save roughly $4 million by cutting off about four thousand dependents of state employee who were wrongly receiving state health benefits.

Minnesota Management and Budget says 4,218 dependents of state workers were not eligible to receive health benefits. That’s a higher number than the department estimated in August when MPR News first reported the preliminary audit results.

But even though the number of dependents is higher, the expected savings are lower. The report found that the state would save about $4 million for the current calendar year, not the $10 million officials projected when preliminary results were released in August.

The report found no evidence of fraud among state employees. In fact, the biggest reason dependents were declared ineligible was because state employees didn’t submit the appropriate paperwork by the audit’s deadline. About 1,000 dependents who lost benefits due to the audit were re-enrolled for coverage for next year. State employees still need to prove their dependents’ eligibility.

UPDATE:

MMB spokesman John Pollard clarified some points in an email tonight.

The $10 million was “a long term savings estimate. The $4 million is an immediate savings we did not expect so we actually saved more than we thought we would.”

Pollard adds that MMB can’t make a long-term savings estimate at this point.

Also MMB expects 1,000 dependents to return to the plan after open enrollment numbers are compiled.

Here’s the full report:

MMB DEVA Final Report 12 12

  • Amy Wilde

    What’s not to like about $4 million in savings? Well maybe that more than 4.000 otherwise eligible dependents temporarily lost their health insurance because their head of household could not locate marriage licenses, adoption or name change papers & birth certificates, etc. (Ironic that some bureaucrats didn’t have the “right” paperwork or missed a deadline, isn’t it?)

    Did these folks go uncovered? Did they qualify for some type of assistance (probably at taxpayer expense) or wind up in a hospital emergency room? Did they enroll temporarily in a spouse’s plan? We don’t know.

    At least state employees got a look at how voter registration might have gone had the Photo ID amendment passed & disqualified paperless citizens while allowing a few non-citizens & felons to vote because they do have drivers’ licenses.

  • A Law-Abiding State Employee Who Was Insulted by the Audit

    And just how much did this audit cost? How much did the company who did it make off the state? Exactly how was this particular company selected? And, while we’re on the topic, what guarantees are there that all the personal information–birth certificates, social security numbers, etc.–required to be provided to that company were actually destroyed as was promised? THERE’S a story for MPR to do.

  • Jim

    You might want to include a statement in your attention grabbing headlines about the error being fixed. Then for those readers that don’t research further they would be left with the proper amount of fear or rage, unless your intent is to mislead.