Federal Workers’ Compensation Integrity and Care Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 25, 2026
Bottom line
The bill grants the Department of Labor expanded access to federal databases to combat fraud and improper payments in the federal workers' compensation program, raising questions about privacy versus program integrity.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) to allow the Secretary of Labor to access earnings and Social Security benefit information from the Commissioner of Social Security, and new hire information from the National Directory of New Hires, for individuals receiving FECA benefits. The purpose is to detect and prevent improper payments within the FECA program, and this data can be obtained without the employee's authorization or notice.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a crucial step towards improving the integrity of the FECA program by enabling the Secretary of Labor to more effectively identify and prevent improper payments, thereby protecting taxpayer dollars. They contend that access to comprehensive earnings and employment data is essential for verifying eligibility and ensuring that benefits are only paid to those who are genuinely entitled, reducing fraud and abuse.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that granting the Secretary of Labor access to sensitive personal financial and employment information without the individual's authorization or notice raises significant privacy concerns for federal employees and beneficiaries. They may contend that such broad data access could lead to errors, misinterpretations, or potential misuse of data, infringing on individual rights in the name of efficiency.
The bill is short and relatively easy to read, allowing ample time for a thorough understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(a), adding 5 U.S.C. 8153(b)(1)
Expanded Data Access for FECA Program Integrity
This provision authorizes the Secretary of Labor to request and receive specific earnings and employment information from other federal agencies for individuals receiving benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). Specifically, the Commissioner of Social Security must provide earnings and monthly Social Security benefit payment information, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services must provide information from the National Directory of New Hires. This data access is intended to improve compliance and prevent improper payments within the FECA program.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this expanded data access is a critical tool for ensuring the fiscal integrity of the FECA program. By cross-referencing data from multiple federal sources, the Department of Labor can more accurately identify individuals who may be receiving benefits improperly, thereby preventing fraud and saving taxpayer money.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that while program integrity is important, this provision grants significant power to the government to access sensitive personal data without explicit consent. They might argue that it could lead to privacy infringements and potentially erroneous benefit terminations if data matching is not perfectly accurate or if due process protections are insufficient.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between the government's legitimate interest in preventing fraud and ensuring proper use of public funds, and the individual's right to privacy regarding their personal financial and employment information. It prioritizes program integrity and fiscal responsibility over individual data consent.
Information requested by the Secretary of Labor may be obtained without authorization from, or notice to, the employee with respect to whom such information pertains.
Section 2(a), adding 5 U.S.C. 8153(b)(2)(A)(i)
Why it matters:While common in legislative drafting to place procedural details together, this specific aspect has significant privacy implications that a casual reader might overlook, potentially making it less conspicuous.
Case for: Proponents argue that requiring authorization or notice would undermine the effectiveness of fraud detection efforts, as individuals engaged in improper activities would be alerted and could take steps to conceal their actions. Unannounced access is essential for effective integrity checks.
Case against: Opponents argue that accessing an individual's sensitive data without their knowledge or consent is a significant erosion of privacy rights. They contend that it sets a precedent for government surveillance and could lead to a lack of transparency and accountability in how such data is used.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly enhances the government's ability to conduct surveillance on FECA beneficiaries, potentially affecting all individuals receiving benefits by removing their right to notice or consent regarding data access.
The term 'improper payment' has the meaning given that term in section 3351 of title 31, United States Code.
Section 2(a), adding 5 U.S.C. 8153(a)(2)
Why it matters:Referencing existing legal definitions is standard legislative practice for consistency and brevity, rather than re-stating lengthy definitions within the bill itself.
Case for: Proponents would argue that using an established definition ensures consistency with broader federal efforts to combat improper payments across government programs, leveraging existing legal frameworks.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on external definitions makes the bill less transparent to the average reader, who must then research additional statutes to understand the full implications of the bill's scope.
Estimated impact: This reference ensures that the bill's scope for detecting and preventing 'improper payments' is broad, encompassing overpayments, underpayments, payments to ineligible recipients, and payments for unallowable goods or services, as defined in the referenced statute.