U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–991 PDF 2008

S. Hrg. 110–309

MEDICAID PROVIDERS THAT CHEAT ON THEIR

TAXES AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 14, 2007

Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

ELISE J. BEAN, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

AUDREY ELLERBEE, Congressional Fellow to Senator Levin 

MARK L. GREENBLATT, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Minority 

JAY JENNINGS, Senior Investigator to the Minority 

MARY D. ROBERTSON, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 1

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 3

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2007

Gregory D. Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic Audits and Special Investigations Unit, U.S. Government Accountability Office .......................................... 9

Linda E. Stiff, Acting Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury ........................................................................................... 10

Kenneth R. Papaj, Commissioner, Financial Management Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury .................................................................................... 12

Dennis G. Smith, Director, Center for Medicaid & State Operations, Centers 

for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services ................................................................................................... 14

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Kutz, Gregory D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 27

Papaj, Kenneth R.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 53

Smith, Dennis G.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58

Stiff, Linda E.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44

EXHIBITS 

1. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report to the Permanent 

Subcommittee Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, MEDICAID—Thousands of Medicaid Providers Abuse the Federal Tax System, November 2007, GAO–08–17 ........... 66

2. Submission for the record regarding the Federal Contractor Tax Compliance task force (FCTC) ..................................................................................... 105

3. Submission for the record of the U.S. Government Accountability Office 

regarding questions posed at the November 14, 2007, hearing .................... 108

4. Submission for the record of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services regarding a question posed at the November 14, 2007, hearing ... 115

5. Response to supplemental question for the record submitted to Gregory 

D. Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic Audit and Special Investigations 

Unit, U.S. Government Accountability Office ................................................ 116

6. Responses to supplemental questions for the record submitted to Linda 

E. Stiff, Acting Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury ........................................................................................ 117

(1)

MEDICAID PROVIDERS THAT CHEAT ON 

THEIR TAXES AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE 

ABOUT IT 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2007

U.S. SENATE,

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:38 p.m., in Room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Levin and Coleman. 

Staff Present: Elise J. Bean, Staff Director and Chief Counsel; 

Mary D. Robertson, Chief Clerk; Audrey Ellerbee, Congressional 

Fellow to Senator Levin; Mark L. Greenblatt, Staff Director and 

Chief Counsel to the Minority; Jay Jennings, Senior Investigator to 

the Minority; Sharon Beth Kristal, Counsel to the Minority; Alan 

Kahn, Law Clerk; Jonathan Port, Intern; Peg Gustafson and Jonathan Scanlon (Senator McCaskill); Adam Pullano, Intern; and Andrew McKechnie (Senator Coleman). 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Good afternoon, everybody. Today’s hearing is the 

fifth in a series before this Subcommittee on Federal contractors 

who get paid with taxpayer dollars but fail to pay their taxes. Prior 

hearings have exposed as tax delinquents over 100,000 defense and 

civilian contractors and Medicare service providers who collectively 

owe billions in unpaid taxes. 

The spotlight today is on the Medicaid program, in particular on 

the doctors, nursing homes, and other medical providers who get 

paid with taxpayer dollars through Medicaid, but have failed to 

meet their tax obligations. A review of just seven States has identified nearly 30,000 Medicaid providers who collectively owe delinquent taxes that date as far back as 10 years, and which collectively exceed $1 billion. Most of these unpaid taxes consist of payroll taxes that the Medicaid providers withheld from their employees’ paychecks but did not remit to the Federal Government, and 

that is a crime. 

Medicaid is a key Federal program that helps fund health care 

for America’s poor. The vast majority of physicians and companies 

who participate in the Medicaid program are true public servants 

who deserve our admiration and gratitude. But a small portion of 

2

1See Exhibit 1, which appears in the Appendix on page 66. 

Medicaid providers are benefiting from the program while taking 

advantage of honest taxpayers. These Medicaid providers are putting taxpayer dollars in their pockets with one hand, while using 

the other to stiff Uncle Sam by not paying their taxes. 

Federal programs exist to stop this type of abuse. One key program is the Federal Payment Levy Program, which was established 

about 10 years ago to enable the Federal Government to identify 

Federal payments being made to tax delinquents and to authorize 

the withholding of a portion of those payments to apply to the person’s tax debt. 

Last year, the tax levy program collected a total of about $343 

million in unpaid taxes from all types of Federal programs; only 

$47 million, or less than 15 percent, came from Federal contract 

payments. In light of the billions of dollars in unpaid taxes owed 

by Federal contractors, $47 million is still far, far too low. More 

needs to be done to cut the red tape hindering the tax levy program. 

The tax delinquents we are tackling today are the tax dodgers 

taking advantage of the Medicaid program. Last year, the Subcommittee asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to 

estimate the number of Medicaid providers with unpaid taxes.1 The 

GAO examined records in seven states that together account for 

roughly 40 percent of the total Medicaid contract dollars spent by 

the Federal Government each year. In those seven States, by comparing Medicaid payment records to the IRS list of delinquent taxpayers, the GAO was able to identify about 30,000 medical providers, about 5 percent of the total number of Medicaid providers 

in those States, whose unpaid taxes were about $1 billion. 

In addition, the GAO identified 25 examples of blatant tax dodging, each of which involved a medical service provider who received 

at least $100,000 in Medicaid payments last year. The GAO identified one physician, for example, who owes over $300,000 in unpaid 

Federal taxes and claims ‘‘limited ability to pay taxes.’’ That is his 

claim. Yet the GAO was able to determine that this same physician 

owns residential property worth over $1 million, received over 

$100,000 in Medicaid payments last year, and also received tens of 

thousands of dollars in Medicare payments. 

In another instance, the GAO identified a nursing home that 

owes approximately $2 million in back taxes, but received 2006 

Medicaid payments totaling $6 million. The same nursing home 

has also been cited by the State for jeopardizing the health and 

safety of its patients. A third example involves a dentist who received $200,000 in Medicaid payments last year but who has not 

made any Federal tax payments in several years. 

The GAO also determined that not a single Medicaid tax delinquent has had a single Medicaid payment screened under the tax 

levy program. When we asked why, we learned that the entire 

Medicaid program—all $185 billion paid by the Federal Government last year—is exempt from the tax levy program because Medicaid payments are not considered ‘‘Federal payments.’’ And the tax 

levy program, as of right now, is authorized to withhold funds only 

from ‘‘Federal payments.’’ There is no provision in the law for tax 

3

1See Exhibit 1, which appears in the Appendix on page 66. 

levies to be applied to payments that are a mix of Federal and 

State dollars, which is what Medicaid payments are. 

So one of the questions that we would like to examine today is: 

In light of the tax dodging going on by providers who receive payments from the Medicaid program, could the tax levy law be 

amended to allow the Federal Government to attach a portion of 

Medicaid payments that are being made to tax delinquents? And 

we would like to look at whatever solutions might be available to 

that problem. 

I hope that the agencies that are gathered here today—the GAO, 

the IRS, FMS and CMS—will lend us their expertise to help analyze the problem and identify possible solutions. 

Again, the vast majority of Medicaid providers are law-abiding 

citizens who pay their taxes on time. In too many cases, these honest and hard-working providers have to compete against a small 

number of Medicaid providers who actually gain a competitive edge 

by not paying or by delaying payment on their taxes. It is long past 

time to find a way to withhold Medicaid payments from those providers who are shortchanging the very taxpayers who are supplying their paychecks and, thereby, forcing taxpayers who pay 

their taxes on time to shoulder the taxes that they—the people who 

are not paying their taxes—are shirking. We need to figure out 

how to enlist the tax levy program to stop these abuses. 

Senator Coleman got the ball rolling on these hearings into tax 

delinquent Federal contractors, and this series of hearings is a result of that effort. We commend him for that, and we commend our 

staffs who have always worked closely together on this issue and 

all the other issues we work on, and we thank them for their efforts as well. 

Senator LEVIN. Senator Coleman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

start at the outset by thanking you for holding this hearing. This 

Subcommittee has focused on the issue of tax cheats and those who 

avoid their tax obligations because all the rest in the end who are 

paying our taxes, are living by following the rules, we pay a price 

for that. And so I want to thank the Chairman and his staff. Our 

staffs have worked together, and it has been the hallmark of this 

Subcommittee, and so I start by expressing my appreciation. 

Today we turn our attention to a disturbing problem: Medicaid 

providers that are cheating on their taxes. We did Medicare last 

time. As the Chairman has indicated, at our request GAO examined whether Medicaid providers are cheating on their taxes. The 

results of their report came back and found that more than 30,000 

Medicaid providers owe back taxes of more than $1 billion.1 That 

is with a ‘‘b’’ and 9 zeros behind the number. To make matters 

worse, that estimate understates the problem because GAO’s analysis only covered seven States, which represented only 43 percent 

of Medicaid expenditures. So the potential is actually much, much 

larger—potentially twice as much, 60,000 providers, could owe $2 

billion in unpaid Federal taxes. 

4

These are not your everyday tax cheats. For starters, they receive billions of dollars every year from the Federal Government. 

In one case, a facility received $39 million from Medicaid in 2006 

alone. So even though they make a good portion of their living from 

the Federal Government, they refuse to pay their fair share of 

taxes. It adds insult to injury that these tax deadbeats are actually 

paid enormous amounts of money every year from American tax 

coffers. They are truly biting the hand that feeds them. 

Even worse, they are abusing their employees. The report finds 

that 56 percent of the unpaid taxes are payroll taxes. So keep in 

mind that payroll taxes include withholdings from their employees’ 

wages for Social Security, Medicare, and individual income taxes. 

These providers, like all employers, hold this money in trust for 

their employees and are required to forward it to the IRS. Rather 

than following the law after collecting the money, these providers 

diverted the money for their own personal gain. Many of the owners of these businesses used their employees’ payroll taxes to buy 

luxury cars, boats, and multi-million-dollar properties and homes, 

even though they owed hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of 

dollars in unpaid taxes. What is more, GAO’s study revealed that 

Medicaid providers also owe more than $100 million in other debts, 

such as child support, student loans, and State tax debts. 

The Chairman mentioned a couple cases. I will mention just two 

others. 

One was a nursing home facility that received more than $39 

million in Medicaid payments in fiscal year 2006, even though it 

owes more than $16 million in taxes. The majority of that tax debt 

is payroll taxes. The business was fined for quality-of-care violations just a couple of years ago. One of its executives withdrew 

more than $100,000 in cash at casinos at the same time he was not 

paying the nursing home’s taxes. Multi-million-dollar Federal and 

State tax liens are outstanding against this business. 

Perhaps the most egregious illustration is a nursing home busi- ness that received $25 million in payments in 2006 and owed more 

that $14 million in back taxes. Court documents reveal that while 

the business owed this tremendous tax debt, the owner of the business bought a 10,000-square-foot home worth more than $2 million 

and spent tens of thousands of dollars on crystal chandeliers, a 

132-piece set of fine Bavarian china, and oriental rugs. The owner 

used the business’s money to pay for a housekeeper, a nanny, 

monthly payments to a parent who did not work for the company, 

a sailboat, and jet skis. And we are not done yet. The report also 

showed that the owner enjoyed gambling trips to Las Vegas and 

Reno. And, in fact, on one of these trips, he purchased a $16,000 

Rolex on the day before a required Federal tax payment was due 

and not paid. 

Unfortunately, these are just the tip of the iceberg. This report 

establishes that there are thousands and thousands of other tax 

cheats just like them in the Medicaid program. I will repeat what 

the Chairman said. To be clear, this is not an indictment of all 

Medicaid providers or of the Medicaid program as a whole. The 

vast majority of Medicaid providers are honorable, law-abiding 

businesses that are helping the Nation’s underserved communities. 

We appreciate their service and admire their dedication. They are 

5

actually put at a competitive disadvantage by tax cheats who get 

away without living up to paying their tax obligations. 

But there is a multi-billion-dollar problem here. In a time requiring fiscal discipline, these billions could be put towards our homeland security, our children’s education, job training programs, or a 

host of other programs that serve America’s needs. If the Federal 

Government levied the Medicaid payments in these seven States 

alone, we could recoup up to $160 million a year. Levying payments all over the United States might recover hundreds of millions in back taxes. Even for the Federal Government, that is a 

substantial sum of money. 

Our hearing today will examine the scope of the problem and 

how we can address it. We have found over the course of the Subcommittee’s investigation that there is no easy fix to this problem. 

The Medicaid payment mechanism is complex, and serious legal obstacles stand in the way. But we have been down this road before. 

Over the course of our 4-year inquiry into tax delinquent Federal 

contractors, we—along with the Federal Contractor Tax Compliance Task Force—have overcome numerous seemingly insurmountable hurdles. The task force has worked with this Subcommittee to 

resolve several thorny problems that inhibit the Federal Payment 

Levy Program, and it is continuing its work on a number of additional problems. I appreciate their diligence and I applaud their 

success. I call upon the task force—specifically the IRS, FMS, and 

CMS—to study this issue and recommend changes that would recover unpaid taxes from Medicaid payments. I ask for their commitment to work together and with this Subcommittee to fix the 

problem. In light of our collective ability to overcome serious problems in the past and the success achieved to date, I am confident 

we can work together to solve these thorny problems once and for 

all. 

As we move forward, however, I would like to publicly express 

my concern that this Subcommittee has not received full cooperation from CMS. In July, Acting Administrator Kerry Weems said 

that increased oversight would be the hallmark of his tenure at 

CMS. In fact, I believe he stated at one of his confirmation hearings, ‘‘If confirmed, I will intensify CMS oversight and I expect you 

to hold me responsible.’’

Well, the proof is in the pudding, and I ask CMS to live up to 

Mr. Weems’s goals. Throughout our investigations, CMS’ assistance 

can be described—and I think it is a fair description—as ‘‘begrudging’’ at best. On several occasions, CMS has treated bipartisan requests from this Subcommittee as Freedom of Information Act applications. Requests from GAO, on behalf of this Subcommittee, 

have been met at times with resistance and uncooperative behavior. We have had numerous other problems that have hindered and 

delayed the Subcommittee’s efforts. In short, we really do need to 

do better. 

In fact, this morning CMS challenged GAO’s report, saying, ‘‘We 

believe that the stated goals of this investigation were based on 

misconceptions about the authority and responsibilities of the Medicaid program.’’ Make no mistake. The goal of this investigation is 

clear: To identify tax abuse among government providers and fix 

the problem. GAO and this Subcommittee have a clear underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Mar 13, 2008 Jkt 038991 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38991.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
6

standing of this issue. We understand its complexity. We recognize 

that there are intricate legal obstacles. We recognize that there are 

technical and procedural hurdles to overcome. 

But at the same time, we recognize that Federal providers and 

contractors should not be given a free pass on their tax obligations—whether they are contractors for DOD or providers of Medicare. Thousands of Medicaid providers should not be exempt from 

paying their taxes. The government has a unique opportunity to 

levy payments to these providers before they are made, and it is 

incumbent on us to figure out the most efficient and effective way 

of doing it without undermining quality of care. And I believe the 

two goals are not inconsistent, that we can provide quality of care 

and at the same time folks can live up to their tax obligations. 

I think it is important to understand that what we are doing affects the quality of care for our most vulnerable citizens because 

the report suggests that outstanding tax debt may be an indicator 

of low-quality medical care. The 5 percent of providers who cheat 

on their taxes frequently have other problems, such as health carerelated violations. It is not in the interest of the poor to have lowquality providers in the Medicaid system. Therefore, rather than 

undermining Medicaid, identifying these tax cheats could strengthen the system. 

I reiterate my call for CMS to work cooperatively with the IRS 

and FMS to find a resolution to this problem. I look forward to reviewing your collective recommendations. If legislative changes are 

needed, we will consider them; if the Federal Government may 

need to assist the States in order to get their participation in the 

continuous levy program, we will evaluate that as well. Again, the 

goal is to improve the functioning of our government, and we need 

CMS to be a productive and willing partner in that effort. 

I look forward to the testimony of today’s witnesses. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Coleman follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Good afternoon and welcome to today’s hearing. At the outset, I would like to commend our Chairman, Senator Levin, for holding this hearing. Like all of the Subcommittee’s investigations, this has been a bipartisan effort every step along the 

way. I appreciate your support throughout this investigation. 

Today, we turn our attention to a disturbing problem—Medicaid providers that 

are cheating on their taxes. At our request, GAO examined whether Medicaid providers are cheating on their taxes and found that more than 30,000 Medicaid providers owe back-taxes of more than $1 billion. To make matters worse, that estimate 

understates the problem because GAO’s analysis covered only seven States, which 

represented only 43 percent of Medicaid expenditures. So, the problem is actually 

much, much larger—potentially as many as 60,000 providers owe $2 billion in unpaid Federal taxes. 

These are not your everyday tax-cheats. For starters, they receive billions of dollars every year from the Federal Government—one of these deadbeats received $39 

million from Medicaid in 2006 alone. Even though they make their living from the 

Federal Government, they refuse to pay their fair share of taxes. It adds insult to 

injury that these tax deadbeats are actually paid enormous amounts of money every 

year from American tax coffers. They are truly biting the hand that feeds them. 

Even worse, they are abusing their employees. The report finds that 56 percent 

of the unpaid taxes are payroll taxes. Keep in mind that payroll taxes include 

withholdings from their employees’ wages for Social Security, Medicare, and individual income taxes. These providers, like all employers, hold this money in trust 

for their employees and are required to forward them to the IRS. Rather than following the law, however, these providers diverted the money for their own personal 

7

gain. Many of the owners of these businesses used their employees’ payroll taxes 

to buy luxury cars, boats, and multi-million dollar properties and homes, even 

though they owed hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of dollars in unpaid 

taxes. What’s more, GAO’s study also revealed that Medicaid providers also owe 

more than $100 million in other debts, such as child support, student loans, and 

State tax debts. 

To get a sense of the problem, let’s review a couple of troubling cases:

• One nursing home facility received more than $39 million in Medicaid payments in fiscal year 2006, even though it owes more than $16 million in 

taxes. The majority of that tax debt is payroll taxes. The business was fined 

for quality of care violations just a couple of years ago. One of its executives 

withdrew more than $100,000 in cash at casinos at the same time he was not 

paying the nursing home’s taxes. Multi-million dollar Federal and State tax 

liens are outstanding against the business.

• Perhaps the most egregious illustration is a nursing home business received 

$25 million in payments in 2006 and owed more that $14 million in back 

taxes. Court documents reveal that, while the business owed this tremendous 

tax debt, the owner of the business bought a 10,000-square foot home worth 

more than $2 million and spent tens of thousands on crystal chandeliers, 132-

piece set of fine Bavarian china, and oriental rugs. The owner also used the 

business’s money to pay for a housekeeper, a nanny, monthly payments to a 

parent who did not work for the company, a sailboat and jet-skis. And we’re 

not done yet—the owner also enjoyed gambling trips to Las Vegas and Reno 

and went on vacations to Hawaii. During this trip to Hawaii, the owner purchased a $16,000 Rolex on the day before a required Federal payment was 

due.

Unfortunately, these are just the tip of the iceberg—this report establishes that 

there are thousands and thousands of other tax-cheats just like them in the Medicaid program. To be clear, this hearing is not an indictment of all Medicaid providers or of the Medicaid program as a whole. The vast majority of Medicaid providers are honorable, law-abiding businesses that are helping the Nation’s underserved communities; we appreciate their service and admire their dedication. 

But there is a $2 billion problem here. In a time requiring strict fiscal discipline, 

these billions could be put towards our homeland security, our children’s education, 

job training programs, or a host of other programs that serve America’s needs. If 

the Federal Government levied the Medicaid payments in those seven States alone, 

we could recoup up to $160 million every year. Levying payments all over the 

United States might recover hundreds of millions in back taxes. Even for the Federal Government, that is a substantial sum of money. 

Our hearing today will examine the scope of the problem and how we can address 

it. We have found over the course of the Subcommittee’s investigation that there is 

no easy fix to this problem—the Medicaid payment mechanism is complex and serious legal obstacles stand in our way. But we have been down this road before. Over 

the course of our 4-year inquiry into tax-delinquent Federal contractors, we—along 

with the Federal Contractor Tax Compliance Task Force—have overcome numerous 

seemingly insurmountable hurdles. The Task Force has worked with this Subcommittee to resolve several thorny problems that inhibit the Federal Payment Levy 

Program and it is continuing its work on a number of additional problems. I appreciate their diligence and I applaud their success. I call upon the Task Force—specifically, the IRS, FMS, and CMS—to study this issue and recommend changes that 

would recover unpaid taxes from Medicaid payments. I ask for their commitment 

to work together and with this Subcommittee to fix the problem. In light of our collective ability to overcome serious problems in the past and the success achieved to 

date, I am confident we can work together to solve these thorny problems as well. 

As we move forward, however, I would like to publicly express my concern that 

this Subcommittee has not received full cooperation from CMS. In July, Acting Administrator Kerry Weems said that increased oversight would be hallmark of his 

tenure at CMS. In fact, I believe he stated at one of his confirmation hearings ‘‘If 

confirmed, I will intensify CMS oversight and I expect you to hold me responsible.’’ 

Well, the proof is in the pudding, and I ask CMS to live up to Mr. Weems’s goals. 

Throughout our investigations, CMS’s assistance has been begrudging at best. For 

example, on several occasions, CMS has treated bipartisan requests from this Subcommittee as FOIA applications. Requests from GAO, on behalf of this Subcommittee, have been met with resistance and uncooperative behavior. We have had 

numerous other problems that have hindered and delayed the Subcommittee’s efforts. In short, we need to do better. 

8

In fact, CMS this morning challenged GAO’s report, saying ‘‘we believe that the 

stated goals of this investigation were based on misconceptions about the authority 

and responsibilities of the Medicaid program.’’ Make no mistake: the goal of this investigation is clear—to identify tax abuse among government providers and fix the 

problem. GAO and this Subcommittee have a clear understanding of the issue; we 

understand its complexity. We recognize that there are intricate legal obstacles. We 

recognize that there are technical and procedural hurdles to overcome. 

But at the same time, we recognize that Federal providers and contractors should 

not be given a free pass on their tax obligations—whether they are contractors for 

DOD or providers in Medicare. Thousands of Medicaid providers should not be exempt from paying their taxes. The government has a unique opportunity to levy 

payments to these providers before they are made and it is incumbent on us to figure out the most efficient and effective way of doing so. 

We also recognize that this affects the quality of medical care for our most vulnerable citizens; the evidence suggests that outstanding tax debt may be an indicator 

of low-quality medical care. The 5 percent of providers who cheat on their taxes frequently have other problems, such as health care-related violations. It is not in the 

interest of the poor to have low-quality providers in the Medicaid system. Therefore, 

rather than undermining Medicaid, identifying these tax-cheats could strengthen it. 

I reiterate my call for CMS to work cooperatively with the IRS and FMS to find 

a resolution to this problem. I look forward to reviewing your collective recommendations. If legislative changes are needed, we will consider them; if the Federal Government may need to assist the States in order to get their participation 

in the continuous levy program, we will evaluate that as well. Again, the goal is 

to improve the functioning of our government and we need CMS to be a productive 

and willing partner in that effort. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Coleman. 

Let me now welcome our panel of witnesses for this afternoon’s 

hearing: Gregory Kutz, Managing Director of the Forensic Audits 

and Special Investigations Unit at the Government Accountability 

Office; Linda Stiff, the Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service; Kenneth Papaj, the Commissioner of the Financial 

Management Service at the Department of the Treasury; and Dennis Smith, Director of the Center for Medicaid & State Operations 

at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services. 

We appreciate all of your being with us this afternoon. We look 

forward to your testimony. 

Pursuant to Rule VI, all witnesses who testify before this Subcommittee are required to be sworn, and at this time I would ask 

all of you to please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear 

that the testimony you will give before this Subcommittee will be 

the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, 

God? 

Mr. KUTZ. I do. 

Ms. STIFF. I do. 

Mr. PAPAJ. I do. 

Mr. SMITH. I do. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. 

We will be using a timing system today. Approximately 1 minute 

before the red light comes on, you will see the light change from 

green to yellow, giving you an opportunity to conclude your remarks. The written testimony of each of you will be printed in the 

record in its entirety. We ask that you limit your oral testimony to 

no more than 5 minutes. 

Mr. Kutz, we will have you go first, followed by Ms. Stiff, Mr. 

Papaj, and then Mr. Smith. After we have heard all of your testimony, we will turn to questions. So, Mr. Kutz, welcome. 

9

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kutz with attachments appears in the Appendix on page 27. 

2The chart referred to by Mr. Kutz appears in the Appendix on page 42. 

3The chart referred to by Mr. Kutz appears in the Appendix on page 43. 

TESTIMONY OF GREGORY D. KUTZ,1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

FORENSIC AUDITS AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT, U.S. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. KUTZ. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Coleman, thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss Medicaid providers with tax 

problems. 

In March, I testified that Medicare physicians and other suppliers were abusing the Federal tax system with little or no consequence. At your request, we have expanded our investigation of 

tax abuse to Medicaid providers. My testimony has two parts: First 

I will discuss our findings and, second, key policy and program 

issues. 

First, we found that over 30,000, or 5 percent, of Medicaid providers in seven States had over $1 billion of delinquent Federal 

taxes. These seven States represent about 43 percent of total Medicaid disbursements. To put a face on this issue, as you mentioned, 

we investigated 25 Medicaid cases from these seven States. For all 

25 cases, we found abusive and criminal activity related to the Federal tax system. Seventeen of these cases were businesses with unpaid payroll taxes. As you both mentioned, willful failure to remit 

payroll taxes to the IRS is a felony. 

For 2006, these 25 providers received $88 million of Medicaid 

payments while at the same time having $52 million of delinquent 

Federal taxes. Many of these individuals accumulated substantial 

personal wealth, in part due to Medicaid, at the same time they 

failed to pay their Federal taxes. The posterboard shows examples 

of some of the homes and luxury vehicles owned by these individuals.2

In addition to these 25 cases, we separately found the owner of 

a nursing home that was recently convicted for payroll tax fraud. 

This business received $25 million of Medicaid payments while at 

the same time having $14 million of delinquent Federal taxes. 

As Senator Coleman mentioned, at the same time this individual 

failed to pay payroll taxes, they bought a 10,000-square-foot home 

for over $2 million and a $16,000 Rolex watch one day before the 

payroll tax deposit was due. 

Our current and past investigations have shown that failure to 

pay Federal taxes is not the only problem these individuals have. 

Let me use the posterboard to walk you through four other themes 

from our cases.3

First, as Senator Coleman mentioned, inadequate medical care. 

We found patient abuse, quality-of-care violations, and a number of 

malpractice lawsuits. 

Second, substantial other debt. Sixteen of our cases had State tax 

debt, and others had unpaid or delinquent student loans and other 

Federal debts. 

Third, criminal activity. Several individuals were convicted of 

larceny and income tax evasion. Others were investigated for 

money laundering, mail fraud, and cocaine possession. 

10

1The prepared statement of Ms. Stiff appears in the Appendix on page 44. 

And, fourth, suspicious cash transactions. Several individuals 

had large cash transactions, including one individual with well over 

$100,000 of gambling transactions. 

These outrageous cases lead to my second point. What is being 

done about tax frauds that are operating in the Medicaid program? 

Unfortunately, the answer to that is nothing. Federal law does not 

prohibit providers with unpaid taxes from enrolling in or billing 

Medicaid. 

In a written response to our report, CMS expressed concerns 

about the tone and language of our report and implications that 

they have any responsibility or authority to screen providers for tax 

debt. Our report clearly states that CMS is not required to do anything. However, we are concerned that fraudsters like the ones I 

just mentioned are currently operating within the Medicaid program. We believe that Congress, CMS, and the States should consider options to prevent the more egregious cases I discussed from 

participating in Medicaid. All options should ensure Medicaid participants are not harmed. Ridding Medicaid of the 26 fraud cases 

that I have described would be a positive step for program integrity. 

At the back end of the process, we have the levy process, which 

was mentioned by both Senator Levin and Senator Coleman. We 

estimate that for fiscal year 2006, an effective, continuous tax levy 

would have resulted in the collection of between $70 and $160 million of delinquent Federal taxes for these seven States. To date, 

there has been no continuous levy of Medicaid in any States, and, 

again, Senator Coleman, you mentioned that was because IRS has 

determined that these are not Federal payments—a key requirement for the levy program. 

In conclusion, the good news is that the vast majority of Medicaid providers pay their Federal taxes. However, our work has 

shown that thousands of these providers have taken advantage of 

the opportunity to avoid paying over $1 billion of Federal taxes. 

Our case studies show the enrichment of tax fraudsters being 

bankrolled by State and Federal Medicaid payments. Isn’t it ironic 

that a program designed to provide health care to the poor is actually being used to line the pockets of these tax fraudsters? 

Senator Coleman, this ends my statement. I look forward to your 

questions. 

Senator COLEMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Kutz. Ms. Stiff. 

TESTIMONY OF LINDA STIFF,1 ACTING COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

TREASURY 

Ms. STIFF. Good afternoon, Chairman Levin, Ranking Member 

Coleman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to update you on the progress we have made since your hearing last 

March on the Medicare issue, as well as to discuss the possibility 

of including Medicaid providers in the continuous levy program. I 

also want to thank this Subcommittee for its continued interest in 

the broad issue of using the Federal Payment Levy Program 

(FPLP) as a means of collecting tax debt. I am pleased to report 

11

that total revenue collected through the FPLP has increased from 

$89 million in fiscal year 2003 to $345 million in fiscal year 2007, 

nearly a four-fold increase. Much of the progress we have made in 

the past 4 years has been the direct result of the interest and support of the Subcommittee Members and its staff. 

During the hearing last March, we explained that we had just 

determined that payments to Medicare providers were indeed Federal payments for the purposes of the FPLP, and that we were beginning to work with the CMS and the FMS to determine how to 

bring these providers under the continuous levy program. 

CMS joined the Federal Contractor Tax Compliance Task Force 

to assist in the development of a pilot program to incorporate Medicare provider payments into the FPLP. That pilot program is tentatively scheduled to go into operation in 2008 and will levy Medicare payments disbursed through CMS’ centralized accounting system. This is a systemic process whereby FMS will match information about CMS’ payments, on a daily basis, against the tax debts 

included in the FPLP. FMS will provide information back to CMS 

when there was a match, and CMS will levy the payments. 

We are on track to implement the matching process in 2008 for 

contractors that are currently utilizing the CMS system. We anticipate full and complete implementation during fiscal year 2011. 

Also at the March hearing, GAO referred to us 40 cases with evidence that certain Medicare providers may be guilty of abusive 

and/or potentially criminal activity relative to Federal income and/

or employment taxes. My written statement provides a detailed report on the progress we have made in dealing with these cases. 

On track with the latest GAO investigation that is the subject of 

this hearing, the task force has now sought to determine if payments to Medicaid providers might also be included in the FPLP. 

Unfortunately, we have been advised by Counsel that the FPLP, as 

currently structured is not a tool that can be used to collect payments made by States to Medicaid providers. Counsel weighed various factors relating to the structure and operation of the Medicaid 

program, concluding that the payments do not meet the criteria established to be considered Federal payments. This means that we 

must use alternative enforcement tools to pursue Medicaid providers that are delinquent on their taxes. 

After this hearing, GAO will refer to us 25 additional cases that 

it discovered in its audit. We will review these cases carefully and 

take appropriate action, as we have on the previous cases which 

GAO referred to us. However, I would note that a cursory review 

of these 25 cases, based on the information provided in the GAO 

report, indicates that the taxpayers involved in these cases are not 

strangers to IRS enforcement. The profile of each of these providers 

confirms that the IRS has sought enforcement actions against virtually all of them. In some cases, that action involved a lien 

against the provider or an effort to apply the Trust Fund Recovery 

Penalty. In some cases, the provider was part of the FPLP levy, although not for Medicaid payments. 

I would be remiss if I did not mention one final issue that certainly has an impact on our ability to deal with these issues. It is 

critical that the IRS’ fiscal year 2008 budget request be fully fundVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Mar 13, 2008 Jkt 038991 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\38991.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
12

1The prepared statement of Mr. Papaj with an attachment appears in the Appendix on page 

53. 2The chart referred to by Mr. Papaj appears in the Appendix on page 57. 

ed. We need those resources to continue our efforts in the very 

areas we are discussing here today. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your efforts and for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. I will be happy to respond to 

any questions that you may have. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Ms. Stiff. Mr. Papaj. 

TESTIMONY OF KENNETH R. PAPAJ,1 COMMISSIONER, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

TREASURY 

Mr. PAPAJ. Thank you, Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Coleman, and Subcommittee Members. Thank you for inviting me here 

to testify today. I am pleased to have this opportunity to report on 

the success of the FMS’ debt collection program and our recent accomplishments and ongoing plans to further improve the Federal 

Payment Levy Program. I would like to thank the Members of this 

Subcommittee and your staffs for your continuing interest in and 

support of these important efforts. 

FMS operates a government-wide debt collection program that 

collects both tax and non-tax debts owed to Federal agencies and 

certain debts owed to States. I am pleased to report that in fiscal 

year 2007, the program brought in record-breaking collections of 

$3.76 billion, $1.7 billion of which was for child support. Of the 

$3.76 billion, Federal tax debt collections totaled approximately 

$345 million, an increase of $42 million, or 14 percent, over fiscal 

year 2006 collections. As shown on the attached chart,2 collections 

have shown a steady rise over the last 4 years. And since the inception of the program in 1996, we have collected over $31.5 billion 

in delinquent debt that would otherwise not have been collected. 

With regard to Federal contractors who owe delinquent taxes, 

the number of levies against Federal vendor payments increased in 

fiscal year 2007 by 11 percent. Collections from Federal contractors 

totaled $47.4 million in 2007 and over $1.1 billion in tax debts have 

been collected since the inception of the levy program. And this 

number reflects only the collections received directly through FMS’ 

Federal Payment Levy Program. 

Notwithstanding these record collections, we realize there is always room for improvement, and we strive to achieve that. 

Since the last Subcommittee meeting in March, significant developments have taken place. First, we have added additional payment types to the program. In June of this year we added payments issued by the Army Corp of Engineers to both the offset and 

levy programs. In October, FMS began offsetting Railroad Retirement Board payments with $844,000 collected in the first 2 

months. We will soon add those payments to the levy program once 

programming changes are complete. In August, we implemented a 

process to ensure that delinquent taxpayers are not able to bypass 

the levy process by receiving Federal payments via Fedwire, which 

is a same-day payment mechanism. Delinquent taxpayers are now 

blocked from receiving Fedwire payments and must receive their 

payment through another mechanism that is subject to levy. 

13

1See Exhibit 2, which appears in the Appendix on page 105. 

Next, we have put in place reciprocal agreements with the States 

of Maryland and New Jersey to collect each other’s debt. Since offsets began in July, we have collected $11.8 million of debt owed to 

Maryland and New Jersey, and those two States have collected 

$439,000 of debt owed to the Federal Government. 

Additionally, we continue to work with IRS to increase the number and dollar amount of tax debt that is activated for levy. The 

amount of tax debts activated for levy has increased from $53.1 billion in fiscal year 2006 to $62.7 billion in fiscal year 2007. This represents about 51 percent of the tax debt IRS has referred and is 

an increase of 6 percent from fiscal year 2006. To increase this 

number even further, the Administration has proposed a legislative 

change that would allow IRS to forego the due process that is currently required prior to levy and allow instead for post levy due 

process under certain circumstances. We believe this would be particularly helpful in ensuring that we do not miss the opportunity 

to levy payments to contractors which are often one-time, non-recurring payments. 

We also continue to work to ensure that payments from various 

systems used for making payments to contractors are subject to 

levy. The latest system to be added, known as the Automated 

Clearing House-Corporate Trade Exchange system, is on target for 

implementation by the end of December. 

We are ready to conduct testing with the U.S. Postal Service to 

incorporate their payments into the levy program, and we are on 

target for full implementation by the end of this year. 

At the March hearing, this Subcommittee brought to light the 

important issue of Medicare providers who owe significant amounts 

of tax debt, yet continue to receive payments from the Federal Government. At that time, we committed to working with the IRS and 

CMS to find a solution. Since that time, much progress has been 

made toward implementing a pilot program to levy Medicare payments. Staffs from all three agencies participate in a subgroup of 

the Federal Contractor Tax Compliance Task Force formed to meet 

this challenge. FMS and CMS recently participated in a table-top 

exercise which walked through the proposed process for matching 

CMS payment records with records of delinquent taxpayers and 

levying those payments when appropriate. 

While the idea of collecting overdue taxes from Medicare providers is relatively straightforward, it is an enormously complex 

undertaking involving a significant number of systems and interfaces. Nevertheless, as a result of the commitment and dedication 

of the agencies and the support of this Subcommittee, the pilot program to levy Medicare payments is expected to begin in October 

2008. In the interim, the task force is working to develop a manual 

process whereby FMS could provide information to IRS on specific 

Medicare providers who owe taxes so that IRS can issue paper levies. More detail regarding the accomplishments of the task force 

will be included in a written report to the Subcommittee early next 

year.1

You specifically asked me to address issues surrounding the levy 

of Medicaid payments in response to recent GAO findings on MedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Mar 13, 2008 Jkt 038991 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\38991.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
14

1The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears in the Appendix on page 58. 

icaid providers who owe delinquent taxes. Unlike Medicare payments which are disbursed by the Federal Government, Medicaid 

payments to providers are issued by the States. This introduces additional legal and operational complexities not present under Medicare. The task force has already begun examining the issue of incorporating these payments into the levy program. Recently, the 

IRS has determined that such payments are not Federal payments 

subject to continuous levy under the current law. Nevertheless, 

FMS, along with IRS and CMS, will continue to examine the issue 

on how best to overcome existing legal hurdles and ensure that any 

process to levy payments is operationally feasible and not unduly 

burdensome and costly to the Federal Government or to the States. 

We expect this to be a complex and long-term effort. However, in 

the interim, because of the overlap between Medicare and Medicaid 

providers, we are optimistic that progress can be made toward reducing the tax obligations of Medicaid providers through our efforts 

to implement a process to levy Medicare payments next year. 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to respond to any 

questions. 

Senator LEVIN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Papaj. Mr. Smith. 

TESTIMONY OF DENNIS G. SMITH,1 DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR 

MEDICAID & STATE OPERATIONS, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE 

AND MEDICAID SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Coleman. It is a 

pleasure to be with you this afternoon to discuss Medicaid’s relationship to the Federal Payment Levy Program. In fiscal year 2008, 

Medicaid will pay approximately $345 billion to hundreds of thousands of health care providers and plans including hospitals, nursing homes, physicians, and even taxicabs to provide health care 

services to about 50 million Americans. The Federal share of that 

amount is approximately $190 billion. 

Medicaid is administered by the States, and many Medicaid providers contract directly with those States. The States are the ones 

who enroll the providers into the program. We, at the Federal level, 

in contrast to Medicare, in Medicaid we do not enroll providers, we 

do not pay providers directly. Our relationship is reimbursing the 

States. The States are the ones who undertake those administrative functions, and in terms of future discussions, I would suggest 

that we invite our partners, the States, to participate in any of the 

potential solutions that we might bring to bear. 

As stated previously, there has been work done in the most recent weeks prior to the hearing to examine the issue of whether or 

not Medicaid would qualify under the levy program. We do not believe that Medicaid does, that it does not qualify as a Federal payment. So I think there is the issue in the first place of the statutory 

limitations that we have. 

Obviously, we cannot prevent someone who has not lived up to 

their obligations under the law to pay their taxes. We cannot take 

action against someone that we do not know about, whether that 

15

is preventing them from enrolling in the program in the first place 

or by offsetting payments to them through the Medicaid program. 

There is a fair amount of overlap between Medicare and Medicaid, and oftentimes providers participate in both programs. But 

Medicaid in many respects goes well beyond the universe of Medicare. Medicaid reimburses for things that Medicare does not, very 

few other payers do not. Other payers generally are not paying 

taxicabs to help people with disabilities to get to their doctor’s appointments, for example. We pay home and community-based services, oftentimes by community-based organizations, many of them 

governmental, many of them not-for-profit, and some for-profit. 

Some of those payers are not even—the payments are not made 

through the automatic claims processing system. So there would be 

significant funds that are disbursed by States to people who are 

not even paid through the automated system, so that would miss 

claims collections as well. 

And I think on the State side of things, having run a State Medicaid program and helped bring up a new MMIS system, States will 

rightfully ask if this is a responsibility outside the Medicaid program. States are rightly going to want to be paid fully for the cost 

of participating in that system. 

There are various capabilities across the States and territories in 

terms of their systems’ capabilities. You have States in wide variation in terms of platforms that they are using. Some process inhouse with State staff. Some are completely hired contractors, vendors such as EDS or ACS, who are running those systems on behalf 

of the States. So, again, there would be another level of—again, in 

terms of protecting taxpayer information, yet another level of involvement for people who actually run the systems on the States. 

And as I said, the States themselves are in various degrees of capacity. We have States that are bringing up new systems, States 

that are not fully integrated themselves, and States that run multiple systems. A large State like California, for example, is running 

multiple systems. 

So to bring all of those players into the fold would require, I 

think, significant resources to even start putting edits into a system, to systems that, as I understand, have been described to me 

as what Medicare is now doing on their side with the levy program, 

having that level of interface between these systems, it would not 

be unreasonable to estimate it would cost at least a couple of million dollars per State per system to be able to make those interfaces work. 

Let me conclude there, and I would be delighted to answer any 

questions. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you all. 

Let me start with you, Mr. Kutz, about how we would design a 

system where you could levy Medicaid payments. CMS, as everyone 

has stated, does not make direct payments to Medicaid service providers, does not keep track of who the providers are. So one possible first step would be to have CMS create a national registry of 

Medicaid service providers, requiring them to fill out an enrollment 

form similar to the ones that CMS now requires Medicare providers to complete. The form would have to ask providers for their 

taxpayer identification number, and for their consent to having 

16

CMS get tax debt information from the IRS. Is that accurate so 

far? 

Mr. KUTZ. I believe so. 

Senator LEVIN. What would be, in your judgment, the cost and 

administrative burden involved in developing that form, creating a 

national registry, and keeping it updated? 

Mr. KUTZ. I really cannot answer how much that would cost. Certainly it would take some time. One thing that is relevant to this 

also, the seven States that we looked at, which are five of the biggest—I think the five biggest, actually, along with two other ones 

that were near our headquarters and field offices, those States represented to us—and we did not audit this or investigate this—that 

they do have their own continuous levy programs over State payments for their own debts. So somehow tapping into that possibly 

is a way to do it for at least the bigger States. So I can speak to 

that. Again, we did not determine what that entails, but there 

seemed to be some promise in that. 

Senator LEVIN. All right. Well, let’s go back to that, and then I 

will go to Mr. Smith and ask him what would be involved in having 

a new registry. On asking the States to do it on the ground that 

many of them now have a levy program for their own tax deficiencies, how many States, approximately, have some kind of a 

withholding system, a levy system on outgoing State funds to collect back State taxes? Do you know? 

Mr. KUTZ. I can only speak to the seven. It was broader than 

taxes. It was any State debt. So they had it similar to the TOP program here in the Federal Government; it was broader than just 

State taxes. 

Senator LEVIN. Did you ask those States what would be involved 

if they broadened their program in order to collect Federal debt 

and presumably got some kind of a payment for doing that? 

Mr. KUTZ. No, we did not. 

Senator LEVIN. Do you have an assessment as to how difficult it 

would be? Are you familiar enough with any of those States’ collection systems? 

Mr. KUTZ. No. We just wanted to see if it was feasible to operate 

a continuous levy program at that level by asking them. We did not 

go beyond to validate what they told us. 

Senator LEVIN. Which is that they have such a system. 

Mr. KUTZ. They have them, yes. But we did not validate what 

the details were behind that or how difficult it would be. We wanted to see if it was feasible at that level, which obviously at the Federal level could be more complicated, but, again, at their level they 

were operating that. 

Senator LEVIN. And did you ask them at all their opinion about 

the practicality of collecting Federal taxes that were due? 

Mr. KUTZ. I do not believe so. 

Senator LEVIN. So you have no idea of costs or complications. Do 

you know whether Congress would have to amend the law in order 

to allow States to get taxpayer information from the IRS or FMS, 

and then to screen and to levy the Medicaid payments? 

Mr. KUTZ. Well, they could do it by getting a waiver of consent 

by the actual providers. So that is one way to do it without the 

17

1See Exhibit 3, which appears in the Appendix on page 108. 

change in the law; otherwise, you would potentially have to allow 

it by law. 

Senator LEVIN. All right. So we could ask them to collect these 

debts and then ask them to get waivers signed. 

Mr. KUTZ. To check with IRS, yes, that is correct. If they signed 

a waiver as part of their enrollment or being in the program, they 

could actually do that, I believe. 

Senator LEVIN. Is it within your work orbit to check with those—

was it seven States? 

Mr. KUTZ. Seven States that represent 43 percent of Medicaid 

disbursements. 

Senator LEVIN. Would it be appropriate to ask you to check with 

those seven States——

Mr. KUTZ. We could certainly do that for you, yes.1

Senator LEVIN [continuing]. To see how much work it would be 

for them to go through that waiver process and then to collect and 

then to charge the Federal Government a portion of what they collect? 

Mr. KUTZ. We could inquire on that, and certainly we could feed 

that into the task force, who is looking at the Federal level at the 

feasibility and see if there are any matches or anything that makes 

sense. 

Senator LEVIN. All right. If you would do that and let the Subcommittee know what the response was of the seven States. 

Now, let me go to you, Mr. Smith. What is your reaction to either 

that system, that possibility, or to create a national registry the 

way it apparently has been done for Medicare? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, we have not looked at that as an 

issue. Clearly, there are hundreds of thousands of providers who 

participate in the Medicaid program. They also participate in ones 

that the individual who owes the tax liability is actually never 

identified because you might be an individual doctor working in a 

group practice, for example. So it is the group that is enrolled as 

the Medicaid provider, so you would not find the individual liability 

in that respect. 

Senator LEVIN. Is that true with Medicare as well? 

Mr. SMITH. I believe that would be true as well, yes, sir. 

Senator LEVIN. Has that been a problem? 

Mr. SMITH. I do not know to what extent they have encountered 

that issue. 

Senator LEVIN. How many Medicare providers are there? Medicare first, then Medicaid. 

Mr. SMITH. Medicare, I do not—1 million Medicare providers. I 

believe there would be at least that many Medicaid, but although 

many of those would also overlap. A hospital, a nursing home, 

probably is participating in both. But as I said, there are also lots 

of Medicaid providers who are not Medicare providers, because we 

provide services beyond that. 

In terms of stopping someone from enrolling as a provider because they have a tax liability, clearly that would be one approach 

to it. Then, as I understand the levy program to work, you are 

withholding payment, as I understand it, up to 15 percent of whatVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Mar 13, 2008 Jkt 038991 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\38991.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
18

ever payment. Payments to providers generally are made on a biweekly basis, so each State is running their claims as they are paying providers, so every time you are paying, you are also making 

an adjustment in reducing the amount of money that provider is 

due. 

That is done on an ongoing basis, so that would be more than 

just the one time stopping you from enrolling because you have a 

tax liability. 

Senator LEVIN. Is there a form right now that Medicaid requires 

providers to fill out? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. States requires providers to—when they do 

enroll their providers, they do various levels of qualifying, 

credentialing, professional licenses, as well as the tax identification, etc. 

Senator LEVIN. Is that a Federal form or a State form? 

Mr. SMITH. States would have their own forms of how they enroll 

them, and, again, because each State runs their own management 

information system, it is going to be unique to have that system 

be able to take in that type of information and have it automated. 

Senator LEVIN. And that form, is that made available to the Federal Government? 

Mr. SMITH. We certainly could ask the States for it. 

Senator LEVIN. But you do not get them routinely? 

Mr. SMITH. Not routinely, as I said, because the States are actually doing the enrollment. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, they do the enrollment, but is there any information from those forms that you routinely obtain? 

Mr. SMITH. Not on a routine basis. 

Senator LEVIN. Survey information or other information? 

Mr. SMITH. We could collect that, Mr. Chairman, but routinely it 

would not come to us. 

Senator LEVIN. And can you tell this Subcommittee for the record 

how large a problem you think it would be for you to ask the States 

to obtain waivers for you? 

Mr. SMITH. Again, I think the States would be asking for the 

waiver from the individual. It is the provider who has to waive 

their right for them to be able to have that information. 

Senator LEVIN. Can you, for the record, tell this Subcommittee 

how difficult it would be for you to ask all the States in their forms, 

for the taxpayer information and to tell Medicaid providers that by 

participating in the program they are waiving their right to have 

that information withheld from you folks? Will you tell us for the 

record? Unless you can tell us right now. Does that sound like a 

big deal to you? 

Mr. SMITH. I do not think it is. We certainly can ask the States 

to do that, if I understand that is what the request is. 

Senator LEVIN. You do not think that would be a big deal? 

Mr. SMITH. We could do that. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. Thank you. Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I do want to express my appreciation for the progress that 

has been made in Medicare, and my sense is that presented a number of complexities. Mr. Papaj, in your testimony you talk about a 

one-day test match with CMS, matching Medicare Parts A and B 

19

payments with the Healthcare Integrated General Ledger Accountant System, HIGLAS, and you indicate in your testimony just with 

one day with the tax debts and the Federal Payment Levy Program, when activated for a levy, it resulted in 335 matches with 

potential collections of $1.1 million. So there is work being done, 

and you are making progress working with CMS and IRS to say 

we could be collecting money in the Medicare program. And I think 

it is fair to say it is a complicated program. You would not disagree 

with that assessment? 

Mr. PAPAJ. No. Medicaid is certainly more complicated than the 

Medicare program. 

Senator COLEMAN. In regard to Medicaid, what we are talking 

about here is the continuous levy, and so one of the technical problems, Mr. Smith, as has been indicated, is that States do not qualify as—they are not agents of the Federal Government by the nature of being a State. Is that what the legal bar is, that we are 

dealing with States that are not agents of the Federal Government? Is that why we cannot—I am not talking about the technical 

side, just the legal side. Is that the barrier there? Ms. Stiff. 

Ms. STIFF. Yes, our legal counsel has looked at what would constitute a Federal payment, and in a nutshell, there are three factors that are contributing to the analysis that these do not qualify 

as legal payments. The first is the flow of funds, meaning that the 

States are actually making the payments to the providers. Second, 

the relationship between the State and the providers, and the 

States actually establish the criteria and the thresholds for eligibility to participate. They render the decisions on whether the 

claims are to be allowed or disallowed. Third, in the event of a dispute over the payment or the non-payment by the provider, the 

State is the responsible party, not the Federal Government. 

Senator COLEMAN. Correct me if I am wrong, but the IRS can 

currently levy Medicaid payments. Is that correct, through a paper 

levy? 

Ms. STIFF. Yes, we do it through the paper levy, which is a little 

bit different process. 

Senator COLEMAN. But you can levy Medicaid payments. 

Ms. STIFF. Yes, we can. 

Senator COLEMAN. Payments made by the State, but the difference is a paper levy. 

Ms. STIFF. The paper levy process allows us to levy what is before us today. It does not call for the continuous levy against the 

next payment and the next payment to capture the full amount. 

Senator COLEMAN. So the levies are essentially—what is it—a 

30-day levy? 

Ms. STIFF. One day. 

Senator COLEMAN. Hypothetically, could it be a 60-day levy? 

Could it be 90 days? 

Ms. STIFF. We would need to review that and see if we need a 

statutory, regulatory, or procedural change on that. 

Senator COLEMAN. Do you have any objection from the States in 

terms of using the paper levy? Does that create any problems in 

terms of the relationship with the States? 

20

Ms. STIFF. No. I think the issue that constraints the paper levy 

is the fact that it is a one-time event as opposed to getting every 

payment that comes their way in the future. 

Senator COLEMAN. And, again, I am just going to——

Ms. STIFF. We will look at that. 

Senator COLEMAN. We can levy payments, so the issue really is 

using a Federal program that would provide for a continuous levy, 

again, understanding that there are significant hurdles. My concern is that we know there are hurdles. We know there are hurdles 

with Medicare where folks got together, with some resistance. Mr. 

Smith, I know you were not part of it, I do not believe, personally 

involved in the Medicare trouble. I think you are a Medicaid person, right? You are not a Medicare person. 

Mr. SMITH. Correct. I am Medicaid. 

Senator COLEMAN. But, Mr. Kutz, I will turn to you. Is it fair to 

say that we had difficulty with CMS in terms of getting information and getting it when it was requested? 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes, I would say that. 

Senator COLEMAN. And so what I am looking for is recognizing 

the challenges but understanding that, in fact, we do levy payments, that we can do it in a micro sense. I would hope that we 

would pull together—by the way, Mr. Smith, you made a good recommendation. Bring the States into the discussion. I think they 

should be part of the solution. 

But, clearly, paper levies are not, Ms. Stiff, the most effective 

way to collect unpaid taxes. Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. STIFF. Well, they are not ineffective. It is just that when you 

have this recurring income stream, the paper levy constrains your 

ability to capture against the future earnings. 

Senator COLEMAN. Mr. Kutz, if I can, just in terms of the size 

of the problem, you have looked at seven States, and that constituted what percentage of the total of Medicaid payments? 

Mr. KUTZ. Forty-three percent, Senator. 

Senator COLEMAN. Maybe it is too simplistic to say a doubling, 

but we looked at less than half of the transactions that are being 

conducted with Medicaid. Is that correct? 

Mr. KUTZ. Correct. 

Senator COLEMAN. And as Mr. Smith indicated, there is some 

overlap even of the cases that you looked at? 

Mr. KUTZ. There were 2,000 cases that we discussed in March of 

Medicare physicians and other suppliers that were in our 30,000 

for today’s study. 

Senator COLEMAN. In your testimony you talked about the range 

of other problems that the individuals who were scofflaws, who 

were tax deadbeats, and you kind of went through a litany. I am 

trying to figure out would it be fair to say that a failure to pay tax 

debt could be a marker in terms of health care providers who have 

other problems or, perhaps even more importantly, are not providing quality health services? Did you see a correlation there? 

Mr. KUTZ. Again, we did not do a statistical sample, a broad 

study, but certainly our work overall has shown that people who 

are tax fraudsters for decades, that is not the only issue they have 

got. And with respect to the Medicare cases we did in March and 

the ones for Medicaid today, they did have an unusually high preVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Mar 13, 2008 Jkt 038991 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\38991.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
21

ponderance of other criminal activity, health care violations, suspicious activity reports, strange cash transactions going on. So 

these are—at least the egregious cases—professional fraud cases. 

Senator COLEMAN. And would it be fair to say that we saw the 

same patterns when we looked at defense and civilian contractors 

who were not paying their taxes, when we looked at GSA contractors who were not paying taxes, and when we looked at Medicare? 

In all your investigations we have been involved in, at least my 

recollection is that we have found similar patterns. Is that a fair 

statement? 

Mr. KUTZ. There are hundreds of cases in the similar patterns, 

yes. 

Senator COLEMAN. One of the concerns, Mr. Smith—and I want 

to make sure that we are not undermining the ability to provide 

service. The nice thing about a levy system is keeping folks providing service. You are just making sure that as we are paying 

them, we are holding back a percentage of that payment so that 

they are paying their obligations. And I am not sure how you do 

this, but I would hope that you would be screening or looking at 

the issue of quality service. Is that fair, that CMS does look at the 

quality of service? 

Mr. SMITH. Certainly, Senator, and we have under my Center, 

we have the survey and certification responsibility also. So if there 

is a quality-of-care issue in a nursing home or a hospital and the 

GAO has referrals to us, we absolutely have other ways to deal 

with people who are endangering the lives and health of the people 

that we serve. 

Senator COLEMAN. And then just a last question——

Mr. KUTZ. Senator, could I mention one thing? 

Senator COLEMAN. Yes, Mr. Kutz. 

Mr. KUTZ. One of the problems we have is we cannot refer these 

cases to CMS. We can only refer them to IRS, and that gets into 

the law on the sharing of tax information, 6103. So that is an important point here. We would love to be able to share these 25 

cases with CMS, but we cannot by law. 

Senator COLEMAN. One of the things, Mr. Chairman, that I am 

going to ask the entire panel to do is to go back and to look at the 

existing system and to spend a little time, identify the challenges 

and the bars to effectively utilizing the Federal payment levy system in dealing with Medicaid, if there are issues with the States, 

issues with funding. Mr. Smith, you have indicated it may cost 

$100 million. We are talking about half the cases returning $160 

million in 1 year. That may be 1 year’s cost, if it is the cost. But 

my request to this panel is for FMS and CMS and IRS to go back 

and put your heads together, and for GAO to be involved in that 

discussion, and let us know what is it that we have to do on the 

legal side, on the definition of what a Federal entity is, etc., and 

in a way that makes sense, makes good common sense. I think if 

you do that, it would be a tremendous service, and it would be a 

service to all the taxpayers of this Nation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Coleman. 

Let me make that request in another way. I think it is the same 

request, essentially, but basically, each of you, what would you recVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:03 Mar 13, 2008 Jkt 038991 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\38991.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
22

1See Exhibit 3, which appears in the Appendix on page 108. 

2See Exhibit 2, which appears in the Appendix on page 105. 

ommend—first your top recommendation, second recommendation, 

third recommendation—to increase Federal tax levy collections? I 

think that is what Senator Coleman’s question is. If you want to 

get together and make those recommendations jointly, fine. But I 

would say that within 30 days we would like those recommendations. Can each of you give us recommendations of that kind within 

30 days? Mr. Kutz. 

Mr. KUTZ. Yes.1

Senator LEVIN. Ms. Stiff. 

Ms. STIFF. Yes.2

Senator LEVIN. OK. Mr. Papaj. 

Mr. PAPAJ. We will try to do so.2

Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. Thank you. 

We have a vote on now, which I think we have about 6 minutes 

left to make any comments. I would just ask a couple questions 

here, and we will recess. 

Do you have additional questions? 

Senator COLEMAN. I will go vote and then come back. 

Senator LEVIN. So we will put this hearing in recess for your additional questions. OK. I just have a couple additional questions, 

and then I will leave. 

This, I think, is for you, Mr. Smith. Is there a standard, a rule, 

a procedure that you have that says that medical service providers 

who have outstanding tax debts are ineligible to participate in the 

Medicaid program? 

Mr. SMITH. I do not believe there is such a thing, and, again, Mr. 

Chairman, the issue for us is we do not know who has a tax——

Senator LEVIN. No, I understand that. What I am asking is that 

if you have a standard which says that if you have a tax debt, you 

are ineligible to participate? You may not know who is lying to you, 

but on your application or your provider’s form, you would have a 

statement, ‘‘the undersigned has no outstanding tax debt.’’ I am not 

saying you would know who is lying, but it would be a false statement to a Federal agency for them to say they do not have a tax 

debt if they do. And there would be some people who might be reluctant to lie to a Federal agency in order to participate in the program, since that is illegal. 

Mr. SMITH. Again, Mr. Chairman, the States are the ones who 

would be enrolling the providers, so they would not be making a 

statement to a Federal official. 

Senator LEVIN. Fair enough. Do any of the States, do you know, 

have that statement that they ask their providers to make? 

Mr. SMITH. I am not aware, Mr. Chairman, but there very well 

may be. I would have to check. I do not believe we had such a provision in Virginia when I ran Virginia Medicaid. 

Mr. KUTZ. Mr. Chairman, I understand, my staff has told me, 

that California may have such a provision, and we could certainly——

Senator LEVIN. Could you check that out? 

Mr. KUTZ [continuing]. Check that out for you, yes. 

23

1See Exhibit 4, which appears in the Appendix on page 115. 

Senator LEVIN. Would you have any problem, Mr. Smith, or 

would your agency have any problem requiring States to add a representation on the application of the provider that the provider has 

no outstanding Federal tax debt? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would have to talk with counsel to 

see if that would be allowable. The Medicaid statute itself has certain provisions, and if we could require it—I would not have any 

problem with requiring it if we have the authority. 

Senator LEVIN. Would you let us know if you have any problem 

with that? 

Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.1

Senator LEVIN. All right. There was some discussion here, Ms. 

Stiff, about the paper levies. Can you change the expiration date 

on the paper levies—is that doable—without changing law or regulation? 

Ms. STIFF. I do not know. I am going to have to go back and 

verify that. 

Senator LEVIN. Would you let us know about that as well? 

Ms. STIFF. I will. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. We are going to stand in recess until one or 

more of my colleagues comes back. I am not going to be able to 

come back, so let me thank you for your testimony. 

We will stand in recess probably for no more than 5 minutes, but 

until a Senator comes and picks up this gavel, we are in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Senator COLEMAN [presiding]. This hearing is reconvened. I have 

a few more follow-up questions. 

Mr. Papaj, as I was looking at the charts of collections, it appears 

that collections declined for 2007, declined from $59.6 million in 

2006 to $47.4 million in 2007. Can you help me understand the 

reason for the decline? 

Mr. PAPAJ. I think the key point is even though the dollar 

amounts went down, the number of levies that——

Senator COLEMAN. And these are contractor collections, right? 

Mr. PAPAJ. Right. The number of payments that we received for 

the levy actually increased 11 percent, and we cannot control the 

dollar amount of the payments. But what I think is important is 

that we continue to get the stream of payments that we can do the 

levies on, and that continues to show an increase. 

Senator COLEMAN. And I am wondering—and I would turn to 

Ms. Stiff—do we have any sense that Federal contractors are settling up with the IRS? In other words, they know the system is in 

place and——

Ms. STIFF. Yes, sir. 

Senator COLEMAN. Is there some sense that is happening, Ms. 

Stiff? 

Ms. STIFF. Yes, sir, on two fronts. Let me add on to what Mr. 

Papaj just said. 

On the decline from almost $56 million down to the $48 million, 

I think there are two factors contributing to that. One was that in 

the prior year there were several large payments that were kind 

24

of anomalies and are not repeating themselves as opposed to an actual decline. 

Senator COLEMAN. A $6 million payment by one DOD contractor 

in 2006. Is that correct? 

Ms. STIFF. Yes, sir. And I think those anomalies are contributing 

to that decrease. 

Senator COLEMAN. Are folks settling up? Is there a sense——

Ms. STIFF. Yes, sir. 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. That you are seeing more settling 

up with kind of the entire debt rather than getting involved where 

you are going to have some levy imposed against you and whatever 

stigma attaches with that? 

Ms. STIFF. We implemented the FPLP program in fiscal year 

2000, and I believe that we reported to you today that we have collected a little over $1 billion through that process. It is interesting 

to note that we send a Notice of Intent to Levy to taxpayers that 

go into this program on the front end. Since that same time frame, 

we have collected just under $1 million from taxpayers who did exactly what you are talking about, which is to settle up as a result 

of the Notice of Intent to Levy. 

Senator COLEMAN. And one of the reasons I raise the question, 

it goes to the request from the Chairman and the request that I 

offered for folks here to come back with—to figure out a way for 

us to do it. There is no question but that there is money out there. 

Some folks, if you put the system in place or give people the opportunity to settle up, we are going to benefit. There are going to be 

more dollars coming in that people owe. We are not taking cash out 

of their pockets that they do not owe. They have obligations here 

that they have not lived up to. 

Let me ask a question about criminal prosecution. There is no 

question IRS has aggressively pursued tax cheats from a collection 

standpoint. Can you talk to me a little bit, Ms. Stiff, about the philosophy involved in criminal prosecution? And the question is 

raised—and perhaps it was Mr. Kutz in some of our conversations. 

You have referred, what, 122 cases to the IRS? Is that a correct 

number? 

Mr. KUTZ. No. If you count all of the different tax-related ones 

we have done, it is probably 250 or 300. 

Senator COLEMAN. And how many of those have been followed up 

with criminal prosecution, do you know? 

Mr. KUTZ. I think the IRS would have to answer. I am not aware 

of any prosecutions related to those referrals. 

Senator COLEMAN. Ms. Stiff. 

Ms. STIFF. We have established a special process to deal with all 

the referrals that have come from GAO over the course of the hearings and their investigations on the FPLP program. Each and 

every one of those cases has been reviewed or is being reviewed, 

in some instances by our Criminal Investigative Division. A full review of the facts, the circumstances, and analysis to determine if 

criminal prosecutions are merited—I can get you the numbers for 

the record. I do not have the exact number. I do not know the number off the top of my head. Probably fewer than a dozen that have 

actually been followed through on. 

25

Senator COLEMAN. Is there a line that is drawn or can you help 

me understand some of the factors that go into determining whether something moves from being a civil collection, an outlandish 

abuse of failing to pay obligations? At what point does it kind of 

move into the criminal realm? 

Ms. STIFF. Well, I think as we all know, the bar for criminal 

prosecution is set much higher. Certainly before someone wants to 

take a case into court, it needs to have some jury appeal; given the 

facts and circumstances, they need to believe they have a case they 

can win. 

In many of these cases, we have instances where taxpayers have 

subsequently gone out of business. We have many instances where 

they have subsequently gone bankrupt. We have many instances 

where they actually make payments sporadically and then do not, 

which would cause a jury in a court proceeding to determine that 

those were actually bad business decisions as opposed to a matter 

of criminal intent. 

So there are a number of factors when you actually get behind 

some of these cases that make it difficult to sustain criminal indictment and prosecution. 

Senator COLEMAN. I understand, Mr. Papaj, that you are going 

to be retiring. 

Mr. PAPAJ. Yes, Senator. 

Senator COLEMAN. I will take this opportunity on the record to 

thank you for your efforts. I think we have made tremendous 

progress in this area from when we first started, and we understand the complicated nature of what we are trying to accomplish. 

But the benefit for the taxpayer is just so enormous, there is a 

mother lode of dollars out there where the obligation is clear, is absolutely clear, and the ability to collect is at hand because we are 

still paying these folks. So this is not a cash flow issue. This is not 

somebody who cannot afford to pay. We are paying them at a time 

that they have obligations, significant obligations. 

So the challenge we have is to put in place a system whereby we 

could use something like the levy process, and I just want to express my appreciation for your service and working in partnership 

with the other agencies and figuring out a better way to do this. 

I was looking at some of the numbers. DOD, from where we started, I think $700,000 with Federal defense contractors collected in 

the levy system, and in fiscal year 2006, I think it is about $31 million. That is over a 4,000-percent increase, I think systemwide, 

with some figures that have shown over an 800-percent increase in 

collections. 

So what we can do is we can set it up, and with the work of Mr. 

Kutz and his associates at GAO, but ultimately folks have to work 

the system. I will end on this note. 

But, again, Mr. Smith, you were not involved in Medicare. That 

was complicated, and there is a sense from this Senator’s perspective that we did not get the kind of response from CMS originally 

that we are going to work and we are going to figure this out. It 

just seemed like we were pulling teeth. 

I will tell one quick story. Thomas Jefferson, the Virginia countryside during the time when he was President, he was with a 

bunch of other friends traveling on horseback, and they came to a 

26

portion of a river where there is no bridge, and so they cannot go 

across a bridge. They have to wade across. And as they are wading 

across, one by one the party goes across. The President is the last 

guy to go, and there is a guy standing on the side there with a big 

bundle of goods. And everyone proceeds. The last guy left is the 

President. As he is about to get on his horse, the guy goes up to 

the President and says, ‘‘Excuse me. Can you help me get across?’’ 

And Jefferson says, ‘‘Absolutely.’’ And he kind of repositions himself, and they get across the river. And when they come to the 

other side, one of the guys in Jefferson’s party goes, ‘‘The President 

says’’—he goes up to this guy, and he is outraged at this guy. And 

he says, ‘‘Who do you think you are? That was the President of the 

United States and you asked him to carry you across the river? 

You could have asked any one of us, but you asked the President.’’ 

And the guy’s response was, ‘‘Well, I am sorry. I did not know who 

he was. But I looked at all your faces, and they said no. And I 

looked at his face, and it said yes.’’

And what I am looking for is a face that says yes. In spite of all 

the challenges and the complexities, if we say we can figure out a 

way to do this without undermining the system, without limiting 

or lessening the quality of care, without burdening States—and I 

am a former mayor, a local elected official. I am deeply concerned 

about unfunded mandates. But I really think we have within ourselves the capacity to say yes and to figure this out. We have come 

a long way, and we will continue marching down this path. But we 

need everyone’s cooperation. 

So I look forward to that cooperation. I appreciate the good work 

that CMS does. I recognize the challenge they have. 

Mr. Papaj, we will continue on without you, but hopefully your 

successor will carry your face that says yes into the fray and into 

the conversation. 

Mr. PAPAJ. Thank you, Senator, and thanks for the support of 

the Subcommittee and the staff. It has been a great run, and I 

think what we need is to work together to be innovative, to be creative, and to try to find solutions. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. I will for the record note 

that we will keep the record open for 2 weeks, plus we expect to 

have a report back from the witnesses within 30 days. 

[Whereupon, at 5:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(27)

A P P E N D I X 


38991.001
28


38991.002
29


38991.003
30


38991.004
31


38991.005
32


38991.006
33


38991.007
34


38991.008
35


38991.009
36


38991.010
37


38991.011
38


38991.012
39


38991.013
40


38991.014
41


38991.015
42


38991.016
43


38991.017
44


38991.018
45


38991.019
46


38991.020
47


38991.021
48


38991.022
49


38991.023
50


38991.024
51


38991.025
52


38991.026
53


38991.027
54


38991.028
55


38991.029
56


38991.030
57


38991.031
58


38991.032
59


38991.033
60


38991.034
61


38991.035
62


38991.036
63


38991.037
64


38991.038
65


38991.039
66


38991.040
67


38991.041
68


38991.042
69


38991.043
70


38991.044
71


38991.045
72


38991.046
73


38991.047
74


38991.048
75


38991.049
76


38991.050
77


38991.051
78


38991.052
79


38991.053
80


38991.054
81


38991.055
82


38991.056
83


38991.057
84


38991.058
85


38991.059
86


38991.060
87


38991.061
88


38991.062
89


38991.063
90


38991.064
91


38991.065
92


38991.066
93


38991.067
94


38991.068
95


38991.069
96


38991.070
97


38991.071
98


38991.072
99


38991.073
100


38991.074
101


38991.075
102


38991.076
103


38991.077
104


38991.078
105


38991.079
106


38991.080
107


38991.081
108


38991.082
109


38991.083
110


38991.084
111


38991.085
112


38991.086
113


38991.087
114


38991.088
115


38991.089
116


38991.090
117


38991.091
118


38991.092
119

Æ


38991.093