Read on Twitter
I’ve been writing a bit on “trust but verify” in #COVID benefits in 
. A few thoughts on this story about alleged fraud & miscounting in 
: https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/1304553665143934976
. A few thoughts on this story about alleged fraud & miscounting in : https://twitter.com/bencasselman/status/1304553665143934976
In theory, decentralized program delivery like state-run UI in (vs fed-run EI in ) = more responsive to local need, better/proximal client service (vs far away ‘crats) & more accountable. But both & systems have used fed tax data during pandemic, to varrying degrees.
(vs fed-run EI in ) = more responsive to local need, better/proximal client service (vs far away ‘crats) & more accountable. But both & systems have used fed tax data during pandemic, to varrying degrees.
In , you could use IRS record but could also use other document to apply. In , not a choice. You apply via Service Can & consent to tax data use or you apply to CRA directly where tax data used. I think got this part more right.
, you could use IRS record but could also use other document to apply. In , not a choice. You apply via Service Can & consent to tax data use or you apply to CRA directly where tax data used. I think got this part more right.
Article points out that COVID UI let in a bunch of usually ineligible gig workers & self-employed. We did the same in . That choice, on its own, doesn’t create risk of deliberate fraud. And, in a pandemic, is the ethical thing to do.
COVID UI let in a bunch of usually ineligible gig workers & self-employed. We did the same in . That choice, on its own, doesn’t create risk of deliberate fraud. And, in a pandemic, is the ethical thing to do.
Go ahead, tell 1 in 6 workers they aren’t worth helping, in a pandemic, in a global recession. Let me know how that works out for you & how well you sleep at night.
Looking ahead to EI reform in , covering gig work & self-employed is a big question. Moral hazard (do we encourage “bad” conduct by insurance) is a different question than fraud or non-compliance. Fraud = not eligible, deliberately fooled you.
, covering gig work & self-employed is a big question. Moral hazard (do we encourage “bad” conduct by insurance) is a different question than fraud or non-compliance. Fraud = not eligible, deliberately fooled you.
Non-compliance = didn’t follow (a) rule(s), usually by accident.
Moral hazard can, as David Green reminded me the other day, apply to employers, not just workers.
Again, moral hazard not = fraud if someone is following the rules.
But, how do you spot it when it’s happening?
Moral hazard can, as David Green reminded me the other day, apply to employers, not just workers.
Again, moral hazard not = fraud if someone is following the rules.
But, how do you spot it when it’s happening?
Again, I think system of centralized delivery & info has big advantages. Firms paying contractors have tax obligations to keep records & issue T4A slips, just as employers have tax obligation to keep payroll records & submit T4 slips. With record linkage, a central system
system of centralized delivery & info has big advantages. Firms paying contractors have tax obligations to keep records & issue T4A slips, just as employers have tax obligation to keep payroll records & submit T4 slips. With record linkage, a central system
can ID firms issuing lots of T4As to regular insurance users just as it can firms that freq employ & lay-off regular insurance users. Why not treat insurance as something *firms* use, not just workers? Why not change firms’ tax reporting from monthly aggregate & annual detail
to monthly detail only?
Our annual tax filing with voluntary compliance inis similar in many ways to the . But internationally, both are increasingly behind curve.
Will there be some actual fraud (not eligible, tried to fool you ) in CERB? Yes. It’s illegal & v rare.
Our annual tax filing with voluntary compliance in
is similar in many ways to the . But internationally, both are increasingly behind curve.Will there be some actual fraud (not eligible, tried to fool you ) in
CERB? Yes. It’s illegal & v rare.
Will there be non-compliance (woops, didn’t mean to break a rule) in CERB? Yes. We should focus on education & compliance, not punishment. More effective, cheaper & politically feasible.
CERB? Yes. We should focus on education & compliance, not punishment. More effective, cheaper & politically feasible.
Do we risk moral hazard in with CERB or bigger EI scope? Maybe, but again, as much or more for firms. But with better admin data you can spot it sooner & act. Harder to do with decentralized system.
with CERB or bigger EI scope? Maybe, but again, as much or more for firms. But with better admin data you can spot it sooner & act. Harder to do with decentralized system.
Stigma, complexity, benefit rate vs cost to comply, info assymetries, perception, “sludge”, these all matter too in determining who actually gets $ offered for those in need. Here, both & have lots of room to improve.
& have lots of room to improve.
But so long as we care more about Type 1 error (false positives) than Type 2 (false negatives, likely larger) in benefit design & admin., we won’t get rid of sludge, stigma etc..
[h/t to @dilipsoman for ‘sludge’]
[h/t to @dilipsoman for ‘sludge’]
And, whether I work in local or federal admin in or in “compliance”, if you make it my main job to find fraud/non-compliance, I’ll find it. Especially if my performance reports depend on it. I’ll spend ALL day thinking about fraudsters. I’ll see them everwhere!
or in “compliance”, if you make it my main job to find fraud/non-compliance, I’ll find it. Especially if my performance reports depend on it. I’ll spend ALL day thinking about fraudsters. I’ll see them everwhere!
