IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/uaajxx/v26y2022i1p1-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review and Qualitative Assessment of Fraud Detection Methodologies in Health Care

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Ai
  • Jennifer Russomanno
  • Skyla Guigou
  • Rachel Allan

Abstract

Health care fraud is a costly, challenging problem in health insurance. This study provides a systematic evaluation and synthesis of the methodologies and data samples used in current peer-reviewed studies from different academic fields on characterizing health care fraud. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was used to guide reviewing the literature. In addition, a qualitative case study approach was employed to assess the studies included in the review in order to independently confirm the conclusions of the systematic review. Out of the 450 articles that were identified by the search criteria, 27 studies were deemed as relevant and included in the analysis. Using 24 variables designed from the literature to synthesize the fraud detection methodologies, the systematic review showed an inability to compare studies quantitatively because few studies reported the accuracy of their detection methods or the overall rate of fraud. The qualitative assessment independently confirmed that prior studies are highly diverse, with the only common characteristic being widespread use of data mining methods. Applying a previously validated approach that has not been taken by prior health care fraud reviews, our qualitative method showed high validity in terms of reviewers’ agreement on the classification of fraud detection methods (r = 93%). Two limitations of this study are that the strength of the evidence is reliant on the quality and number of studies previously performed on the topic, and our systematic review and qualitative results were limited to the text of the final studies as published in peer-reviewed journals. The main gaps we identified are the need to validate existing methods, lack of proof of intent to commit fraud, absence of a fraud rate estimate in the studies analyzed, and inability to use prior evidence to select the best fraud detection method(s). Additional research designed to address these gaps would be of value to researchers, policymakers, and health care practitioners who aim to select the best fraud detection methods for their specific area of practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Ai & Jennifer Russomanno & Skyla Guigou & Rachel Allan, 2022. "A Systematic Review and Qualitative Assessment of Fraud Detection Methodologies in Health Care," North American Actuarial Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 1-26, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:uaajxx:v:26:y:2022:i:1:p:1-26
    DOI: 10.1080/10920277.2021.1895843
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10920277.2021.1895843
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10920277.2021.1895843?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:uaajxx:v:26:y:2022:i:1:p:1-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/uaaj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.