Get PJ Media on your Apple

‘TELEPHONIC SIGNATURE’? As of Jan. 1, Obamacare Forces States to Accept Applications ‘Signed’ by Voice

The push to massively expand public programs creates yet another security disaster.

David Steinberg


January 13, 2014 - 12:01 am

The Obama administration’s interest in creating a streamlined application process for Medicaid, CHIP, and subsidized health insurance via the state Obamacare exchanges has come at the expense of effective security and fraud prevention.

As of January 1, 2014, this easing of requirements now includes the mandate that states accept applications completed entirely via telephone. Rather than require such applications be later accompanied by the electronic or mailed transmission of a signed document, HHS instead requires states to accept a spoken assent on a telephone call as the equivalent of an actual signature.

Says J. Christian Adams, PJ Media legal editor and former DOJ attorney:

Perjury prosecutions are impaired by telephone signups. Signing on a dotted line has been the core means of assent for hundreds of years, and even computerized signatures have a means of verifying that the person signing is real.

This is the administration inviting fraud.

The Affordable Care Act, as passed, does not mandate the acceptance of “telephonic signature.” The relevant passage — Section 1413(b)(1)(a) — only requires that applications “may be filed online, in-person, by mail, or by telephone.” Relevant regulations issued by HHS did not initially mandate telephonic signature, either. See 42 CFR 435.907, which only required “a written application from the applicant, an authorized representative, or, if the applicant is incompetent or incapacitated, someone acting responsibly for the applicant.”

However, on March 23, 2012, Section 435.907 was revised. This revised section went into effect on January 1, 2014. It included the new part (f):

(f) The agency must require that all initial applications are signed under penalty of perjury. Electronic, including telephonically recorded, signatures and handwritten signatures transmitted via any other electronic transmission must be accepted.

The comment-and-response process which resulted in the new part (f) is available here. Note that the comments include scant discussion regarding any expressed need or desire for the mandated acceptance of telephonic signatures. Part (f) simply appears later in the document, and is now in effect.

On August 9, 2013, the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services issued a document titled “Medicaid and CHIP FAQs: Telephonic Applications.” This document included the following passage:

2. Voice Signatures: All applications must be signed (under penalty of perjury) in order to complete an eligibility determination. In the case of telephonic applications, states must have a process in place to assist individuals in applying by phone and be able to accept telephonically recorded signatures at the time of application submission. If applicable, states can maintain their current practices of audio recording and accepting voice signatures as required for identity proofing.

With this document, CMS offered guidance to the states regarding enactment. But CMS left unaddressed both the motivations behind the issuance of this regulation, and how telephonic signature can provide any level of security or fraud prevention.

Why the interest in forcing states to mandate acceptance of telephonic signatures?

Perhaps the answer lies with Enroll America, the Obamacare enrollment organization that was exposed late last year by James O’Keefe for violations of its non-profit status.

Enroll America received its non-profit status as an organization existing to assist applicants for Obamacare plans, Medicaid, and CHIP, but the organization’s ties with the politically biased Organizing for Action and Battleground Texas have placed the group’s purpose in question.

In February 2013, Enroll America produced a document titled “Telephonic Signatures: An Essential Tool for Enrollment.” The document stresses that low-income applicants — those likely to qualify for Medicaid, and thus exceedingly likely to receive voter registration forms, as reported here at PJ Media — have expressed a preference for telephone applications:

A recent three-state study conducted by Lake Research Partners found that nearly as many low-income people want assistance by telephone as in person, and almost twice as many want help over the phone compared to those who want help online. This research suggests that phone applications will be especially important to supporting enrollment in health insurance that will be available to individuals and families in 2014 (Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and coverage through a health insurance exchange).

Notably, the document does not make any mention of the obvious security and fraud prevention concerns inherent in such a system.

The document does mention past use of telephonic signature by the federal government, though; not surprisingly, telephonic signature was first implemented federally only within another public assistance program. This was the 2008 Farm Bill as it related to the SNAP program, formerly known as the food stamps program.

With this history, telephonic signature appears to be an attractive tool for those interested in increasing the disbursement of federal subsidies. (In researching this article, I have yet to come across much interest being expressed for the implementation of telephonic signature for, say, tax collection.) Further, telephonic signature appears to be an attractive tool for a federal subsidy enrollment organization with demonstrated ties to Democratic Party groups invested in voter registration.

The Enroll America document continues:

A telephonic signature is a type of electronic signature that uses an individual’s recorded verbal assent in place of an ink signature, and it is considered legally enforceable in both the private and public sectors under certain conditions. In addition to significant use of telephonic signatures in the private sector, the federal government has been testing various ways to implement telephonic signatures since the 2008 Farm Bill, which allowed state agencies to accept “spoken signatures” for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program). The goal of this rule change was to develop a more efficient and cost-effective application process for individuals and government agencies by allowing SNAP applicants to avoid the lengthy and often unreliable mail exchange to submit ink signatures.

Despite mentioning the above “goal,” the document does not mention any specific or documented faults alluded to by the “lengthy and often unreliable” language, nor why a scanned and electronically transmitted signature would not solve such problems. The document also does not mention how a telephonic signature can be “efficient and cost-effective,” considering the substantial IT implementations needed and the obvious fraud concerns. The document does not mention how telephonic signature can provide any level of security, only that it has been considered “legally enforceable … in certain conditions.”

Today, those certain conditions now include any federally subsidized health insurance plan governed by Obamacare.


The following is an excerpt from a document titled “Road to the Sale,” produced by Humana and dated December 2, 2013. It appears to be a step-by-step manual for a customer service representative to use when handling an insurance application that will use telephonic signature. The relevant section:

T-Signature Steps

Prepare the caller for the telephonic signature by reading the required scripting:

“You will now be signing your application telephonically, giving your verbal authorization to all terms and conditions included in the application. You will hear three short recordings, and at the end of each recording I will ask for your consent to the terms and conditions you just heard.”

Conference into the VoiceLog number listed in So-Easi

After the first beep, ask:

  • “Mr./Mrs./Ms. (must use applicant’s full name) do you agree to these terms?”
  • Press # to continue to the next recording

After the second beep, ask:

  • “Mr./Mrs./Ms. (must use applicant’s full name) do you agree to an electronic verbal signature of your application?
  • Press # to continue to the next recording

After the third beep, ask:

  • “Mr./Mrs./Ms. (must use applicant’s full name) do you agree to an electronic verbal signature of your payment authorization?
  • Press # to continue

Capture Voicelog ID# and enter it into VoiceLog ID box.

David Steinberg is the New York City Editor of PJ Media. Follow his tweets at @DavidSPJM.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
This is unbelievable....You can't affirm something over the phone. There are public service ads that tell you to never give your personal information over the phone. Never give your SSN, date of birth or other identifying information.

This is insane.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (23)
All Comments   (23)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
til I saw the receipt which had said $8602, I didn't believe friends brother was like they say actually receiving money parttime from there computar.. there mums best friend haz done this for only 7 months and by now repaid the mortgage on there cottage and bourt a new Mercedes. check
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
Barry Hussein Obama has been lying all his life over everything possible.
Now he is on it again with this telefonically signing, just to lure more people in his fangs.
Get rid of Barry as soon as you see fit.
12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
What the Heck?!!

Can anyone say:
"FRAUDULENT applications"
"PAID telemarketer-type" phone calls?
"ROBO-CALLS" to the 800 # that will be accepted by this desperate measure to sign people up?
(especially, healthy young millenials)

Just saw the first ad today by MAGIC Johnson. A second one is planned to another NBA star, Alonzo Mourning.

Ad by these 2 athletes, paid for with tax dollars & the ACA budget for ads and commercials to CONVINCE people to sign up for the 'Affordable Care Act' medical insurance..

These ads are aimed at YOUNG ADULTS, the young & healthy, the young & invincible, the Millenials ...
.... especially MALE young adults who will be the LEAST likely to be using the new mandatory law to purchase Medical Insurance, under penalty of fines. Right off the bat we know that YOUNG MEN won't ever need 1) birth control pills. 2) maternity care but will be paying for it with their medical insurance premiums via Obamacare, or officially called by politicians distancing connection to Pres Obama... the ACA
(no longer nicknamed "Obamacare" especially since the fiasco of the launch on OCT 1 that they are still trying to sugar coat as a slow but steady growth of applicants & enrollees).

12 weeks ago
12 weeks ago Link To Comment
what a great idea. I have signed my x-wife up for the most expensive plan, 3 times. she will thank me someday. she's now an organ donor too.

what, people are worried about fraud in our gooberment at this late stage? what a hoot. I saw a sign on the driver's license bureau today that said, 'birth certificates produced here', or something of that sort. wonder does our most transparent and honorable leader know about this? maybe he can get a real ss# and draft registration letter there too.

to be fair, those obamaphones are a must for people needing a way to regularly 'reach out and touch' their drug dealer, in a monetary way of course.

btw, the pub's in the senate that keep voting for and supporting this progressive craziness are what are known as r.i.n.o.'s. they judge themselves worthy of this label by their voting pattern, and they need to be known for what they are come next election.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Can I call to the IRS, and 'deem my taxes paid'?
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
What a perfect storm of security issues. Whoops, we lost the recording.

Guess what you agreed to on the phone last week?
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
So somebody could phone and claim to be me, sign me up for obamstercare, and agree to their phone signature, and I'm on the hook???
If private industry tried this, there would be hell to pay.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
David, you are 100% absolutely wrong on this one. A voice signature of your voice is far less prone to fraud than a hand signature or an electronic signature. After all an electronic signature says nothing about you other than someone who's logged into your computer, or gotten on your computer when you went to the john was able to use it to make a commitment on your behalf. No one has your voice and voice signatures are far, far less likely to fool a well configured system than a thumbprint. This is because your voice is far more complex. It's been used in a number of insurance systems and to my knowledge has never been compromised. Just because the Obami propose it doesn't mean it's wrong. See more here:
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
And what is to stop somebody calling in and claiming to be you.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Do you honestly believe that the government will store millions of voice signatures in case of fraud? How about all those warnings not to give out personal info over the phone? This sounds like it would be way to easy for the government to say you did when you didn't. I'm not comfortable with any contract that is not in writing and I don't have a personal copy of.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
So, people willingly agree to policies affecting the healthcare they will receive, pages of byzantine legalese, without reading the documents? They have that much faith in the assistance they are getting from Navigators?
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Its mostly for medicaid cases, they dont pay anything, so why should they be woried. Its the taxpayers who will get scammed in any fraud.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
Next up: Vote by phone.
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
No big deal. This is on a par with not requiring an ID to vote.

No surprise that the Stupid Party would cave either. They are constitutionally unable to articulate the phrase "facilitates fraud". It just isn't in their vocabulary.

Progressive Education wins again!
13 weeks ago
13 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All