But it doesn't say what you get from the headline.
"For the fiscal year that ended last Sept. 30"--in other words, 9 months of Obama, 3 of *--"the federal government won or negotiated $1.63 billion in judgments and settlements, and investigators opened 1,014 new criminal health care fraud investigations involving 1,786 defendants.
"Most of those figures are up from 2008, when the government won or negotiated $1 billion in judgments and settlements, and investigators opened 957 new criminal health care fraud investigations involving 1,641 potential defendants.
"In 2008, the recoveries for the Medicare Trust Fund totaled $1.9 billion." That would be f/y ending 9/30/2008.
So it's not like it went from $0 under * to $2.5 billion under Obama. But that $600 million increase is nice, even if part didn't happen under Obama's watch.
Let's ignore the fact that there's a big element of faith in these numbers. These are settlements, not payments. Payments were probably less--but how much less we're not told. We have big settlements, who needs the cash. More talking of things that aren't as though they were.
However, why did it increase?
Here's a hint from 7/2008, just a couple of months before the fiscal year under discussion began:
"The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services this spring wrapped up a three-year pilot program in which "recovery audit contractors," or RACs, scoured physician and hospital claims in three states to find overpayments and to recoup those dollars for Medicare. Thrilled by the project's financial success, lawmakers ordered CMS to expand the program to all 50 states by 2010. The agency plans to choose four national contractors to administer the program this summer. A new round of audits could start right away."
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/07/07/gvsa0707.htmOh. So the $1.8 billion didn't cover all 50 states, etc. Instead, coverage increased--so you might expect the amount garnered, or at least named in settlements, to increase.
Of course, if the audits were ordered under a program begun in 2008 or before, it's hard to give 100% credit to the man on watch after 1/2009. There's the rub.
Did Sebelius and specifically her appointees increase the take? Probably. But it's hard to quantify and harder yet to portion out kudos. Unless, of course, you have a really, really small set of facts.
What's indisputable is that Sebelius et al. get kudos for not discontinuing a good program. Faint praise, that. That's praise best not tendered.