Opinion: State Use of Do Not Pay Needs Results and Privacy Safeguards
Expanding payment screening could prevent waste, but states need transparent accuracy, appeal and savings measures.
Senator Joni Ernst is urging state organizations to increase use of Treasury’s Do Not Pay screening system and explain barriers by November 27. Preventing an erroneous payment is generally cheaper than recovering it later, making broader participation worth testing. Expansion should be paired with published accuracy measures and a prompt correction process because a database match is not automatically proof of fraud or ineligibility.
What the release says
Ernst’s October 30 letter asks the National Governors Association and the State Financial Officers Foundation to encourage state partnerships with Treasury’s Do Not Pay system.
The letter says 19 states currently use the system for at least one component or office. Congress authorized access for states, territories and federally recognized tribes in 2020.
The release reports that the system helped prevent, detect or recover $11.7 billion in improper payments in fiscal 2025 and blocked $175 million in payments to deceased people in fiscal 2026. Those categories are not all equivalent to proven fraud.
Read the official release: 31 States Leave Free Fraud-Fighting Tool on the Shelf. Ernst Demands AnswersOur centrist perspective
Cross-checking payment records against death data, excluded contractors and other eligibility information can identify mistakes before public funds leave the government. States should be able to compare the cost and effectiveness of that approach with their existing controls.
Adoption totals alone do not show value. A useful evaluation would report confirmed improper payments, false matches, corrected records, processing time, administrative cost and net savings for each participating program.
People and legitimate vendors affected by an inaccurate match need notice and a practical way to correct it. Data-sharing agreements should also limit access, retention and secondary use to the payment-integrity purpose.
The tradeoffs
Broader screening may reduce losses and duplicate payments, while weak matching rules could delay lawful benefits or contracts.
A shared federal tool can reduce duplicated state investment, but states may face data-quality, legal and system-integration barriers that require more than a request to participate.
What to watch next
- Responses due November 27 identifying which states participate and the barriers reported by nonparticipants.
- Program-level false-positive rates, verified savings and the speed of appeals or record corrections.
This is an editorial interpretation, not an official agency statement. Factual summaries rely on the linked release; implications and recommendations are our opinion. How we work