An Act amending Title 71 (State Government) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for the assessment of improper payments by Commonwealth agencies and for public information on payments . . . and programs of Commonwealth agencies.
HB979 would add a new chapter to Title 71 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes requiring Commonwealth agencies to regularly assess improper payments in their programs. For programs not already covered by federal improper-payment rules, each agency would have to conduct a biennial assessment, beginning with an initial assessment within 120 days after the law takes effect. The assessment must classify programs as low, moderate, or high risk based on the dollar amount and percentage of improper payments, explain the reasons for the risk rating, identify root causes in high-risk programs, and use statistical sampling and extrapolation to estimate error rates.
For high-risk programs, agencies would also have to adopt corrective action plans aimed at reducing improper-payment error rates to no more than 3% by the next biennial review. Agencies would be required to send their assessments to the Budget Secretary, Inspector General, Auditor General, Independent Fiscal Office, and members of the General Assembly. The bill also directs the Office of the Budget to maintain a public website showing each agency’s assessments, total improper payments, high-risk programs, corrective action plans and status updates, and the recovery of improper payments.
The bill would create new reporting, auditing, and transparency obligations for executive-branch Commonwealth agencies under the Governor’s supervision, while expressly excluding the Treasury Department, Auditor General, and Attorney General. It would not directly change benefit eligibility or program rules, but it would require agencies to measure payment accuracy, document error rates, and implement corrective actions for programs with significant improper payments. The Office of the Budget would gain a new public-facing disclosure role, and the General Assembly and oversight offices would receive standardized assessment data for monitoring waste, fraud, and administrative errors.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call history to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears framed as a government accountability and fiscal oversight proposal, suggesting a generally reform-oriented purpose focused on transparency and reducing payment errors. The absence of recorded action in the provided context means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from legislative proceedings in the materials supplied.
The bill’s likely points of contention are administrative burden, cost, and scope. Agencies may object to the requirement to perform biennial assessments, use statistical sampling, and prepare corrective action plans, especially for programs not already subject to federal improper-payment requirements. Another possible issue is the 3% target for high-risk programs, which could be viewed as an aggressive benchmark or difficult to apply uniformly across diverse programs. The public posting of agency error rates and corrective plans may also raise concerns about reputational impact, although supporters would likely view that transparency as the bill’s main strength.