You just have to love government thinking.
The inspector general of Social Security, Patrick P. O'Carroll, released a report this week that called for the removal of Social Security numbers from Medicare cards that are used by more than 40 million Americans. O'Carroll wants the numbers removed because they pose a risk of identity theft.
As quoted in the New York Times, O'Carroll said, "Displaying such information on Medicare cards unnecessarily places millions of individuals at risk for identity theft. We do not believe a federal agency should place more value on convenience than the security of its beneficiaries' personal information."
So how do Medicare officials respond?
It tells the inspector general to go take a hike.
"Charlene M. Frizzera, chief operating officer of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, played down the risk of identity theft from the misuse of Medicare cards. If the government suddenly issued new Medicare cards or identification numbers, she said, it could startle or alarm beneficiaries. 'We don't want to scare them,' Frizzera said," in the Times story.
I wonder what studies Medicare did investigating "senior fright" when social security numbers are replaced by some other number. Virginia has been removing social security numbers from driver licenses for the past few years - maybe Medicare can conduct a survey of how frightened seniors became when that change-over happened.
The real reason, of course, is that Medicare thinks making the change would be too costly.
According to the story:
Frizzera said that "issuing new Medicare cards would be 'a huge undertaking.' The agency would need three years to plan such a move and eight more years to carry it out, she said."
In addition, "Medicare officials estimate that it would cost $500 million to change their computer systems if they issued new ID numbers to beneficiaries. Doctors, hospitals and other health care providers use those numbers in filing claims with Medicare, which pays a billion claims a year."
Hmm, it would take 11 years to fully make the change? And Medicare is worried that seniors would be "startled" by the "sudden" change?
Given the current life expectancy of many of those currently on Medicare, no doubt many would be dead before they ever saw their numbers change given this project schedule.
And other organizations, like Blue Cross and Blue Shield, who cover 100 million individuals, stopped using Social Security numbers years ago. They didn't need 11 years or $500 million that I know of.
According to the story, only Congress can force Medicare to make the change. Maybe it needs to before the wave of baby boomers like me really begin to retire.
BTW, I for one, promise not to be scared if Medicare makes the change. And I'll even pay a one-time $20 fee towards the conversion when I sign up for Medicare.
Comments (8)
What a pitiful excuse!!!
Posted by Marilyn Welles | June 26, 2008 11:27 AM
Posted on June 26, 2008 11:27
Changing existing Medicare numners is not cost efficient, but issuing Medicare numbers distinct from Social Security numbers mkes sense if done only for new Medicare enrollers.
In view of life expectancies, the whole crew will have new numbers in 40 years or so.
Posted by Howard Tompkins | June 26, 2008 3:10 PM
Posted on June 26, 2008 15:10
As for me, I have been scared ever since I went on Medicare and was required to carry the card with my social security number so it would be available every time I needed medical care.
All they have to do is include the new card with the new ID in their next mailing to me. The next time I see a doctor, I give the receptionist the new number, which the Dr. then uses to file the next claim.
I don't know what their data base program is, but if it can't add a new ID field to relate claims to the SS number, it is time for them to get a new data base program anyway. And fire the person who signed off on the one they have.
And what does the fact that they pay a billion claims a year have to do with this issue. A new ID number will not add one iota to the cost of processing since the lookup still requires going from a number to the file. Who cares what the number is as long as the data base is set up to reference the file with that number. The only cost is the one pass through the base to set up the index for the new ID.They could even have new claims use both IDs for a month period so the index switchover could occur for all files in one day, after which the new ID would be used alone.
I know there are problems I don't know about, but I doubt if any of them are insurmountable unless the data base was designed by a complete incompetent.
And I suspect the change would work better and be less expensive if everyone was switched at the same time rather than phasing in the new IDs for new users only.
Posted by Louis Benton | June 26, 2008 7:31 PM
Posted on June 26, 2008 19:31
I wonder what the current total cost of social security number identity theft amounts to. How much will this cost will be reduced if a new medicare number is issued.
Posted by Cord Ohlenbusch | June 27, 2008 7:39 AM
Posted on June 27, 2008 07:39
The SS number should be removed. All the excuses are unfounded. A separate medicare ID should be issued with an updated card.
Posted by John Cosgrove | June 27, 2008 3:20 PM
Posted on June 27, 2008 15:20
The post by Tompkins is spot on. I was horrified when I got my Medicare card last month and found out that my Social Security number was there for all to see.
Posted by Everett Stokes | June 29, 2008 12:34 PM
Posted on June 29, 2008 12:34
So the problem is that Medicare, a part of the social security network in the US uses social security numbers, not that the credit reporting industry is taking a free ride on that network by using the numbers and credit issuer will issue credit to pretty much anyone who gets their hands on this number?
I guess that this is just to glib and out-of-touch with reality.
Posted by John Firth | July 1, 2008 7:41 PM
Posted on July 1, 2008 19:41
Sounds like another boondoggle to me. I fully recognize that identity theft is an issue. It's questionable if it is a problem. So we make two numbers are different. How will that enhance security and reduce identity theft. Most identity theft is enabled by individuals who give out SS#s of their own free will - someone gets an email, like from a 'bank' where they do not have an account asking for verification information and provide the SS#. Look folks, the same thing will happen if the numbers are different. Only now, you have two sets of numbers to track.
Want to avoid ID Theft? Stop providing your SS# to anyone who asks for it. Ask: "why do you want my SS#?" If it sounds 'fishy', don't provide it. Let's start using some common sense.
Pete Plocher
Posted by Pete Plocher | July 2, 2008 3:17 PM
Posted on July 2, 2008 15:17