You may have heard the phrase “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” That’s exactly what federal auditors discovered when they tested the health-care marketplace under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
In a newly released report titled GAO‑26‑108742, they found the GAO tried to enroll people who don’t really exist.
In 2024 and 2025 they submitted applications using made-up identities.
In 2024, all four fictitious applicants got approved and received subsidized insurance. The federal government paid about $2,350 per month for each in just November and December.
For 2025, auditors pushed the test further: they submitted 20 fake applications.
Nineteen were approved, and as of September 2025 eighteen remained active — costing taxpayers roughly $10,000 per month for just those fake names.
That’s not all.
The GAO also found widespread misuse of Social Security numbers (SSNs). Some SSNs were used more than once. Some belonged to people no longer alive.
That means some dead people were getting federal subsidies.
GAO investigators flagged the system’s weak controls. The agency noted that the government watchdog last did a fraud-risk review back in 2018 — before the massive expansion of subsidies brought on by the COVID-era laws.
Since then, nothing meaningful was done to upgrade the fraud defenses, even though enrollment and payouts exploded.
“Rampant waste, fraud, and abuse”
The report drew swift fire from conservatives. On the website of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a post laid it out plain: the new GAO numbers show “rampant waste, fraud, and abuse” in the ACA marketplace.
In that post, they pointed out the very problems GAO uncovered: fake identities approved for subsidies, thousands of Social Security numbers misused, and even dead people getting tax-payer funded insurance.
Grover Norquist, president of ATR, wrote that “fake identities submitted by GAO were approved for subsidized coverage,” stressing that the system simply hands out tax dollars to whoever applies — real or not.
He didn’t mince words: why should Americans keep footing the bill for a system that “doesn’t work,” he asked. He argued we need real choices, not a broken government program masked by subsidies.
What This Means for Nevada and Everyday Folks
If you live in Nevada — maybe in Las Vegas, Reno, or one of our rural counties — this matters.
Whether you pay taxes, receive Medicaid, or just care about responsible government spending, this is about you.
Because every fraudulent subsidy means more pressure on taxes, budgets, and even insurance costs for real people.
Nevada’s elected leaders should care that hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of taxpayer dollars might be going to people who don’t exist.
That is on top of all the unmet promises about affordable care.
And it is not just about money. It is about fairness and accountability.
If a program is going to use your tax dollars, it should protect against fraud. It should verify people. It should treat all citizens the same.
What Opponents Say — and Why This Still Matters
Supporters of the subsidies might argue these financial assistance programs help people who truly need help.
They say the safety net must be there for individuals who earn less or face hardship and might say what the GAO found is anecdotal or rare — maybe not representative of everyone who uses the system.
That is fair to acknowledge. The GAO itself says its “covert testing” does not prove that all or even most enrollees are fake.
But even if a small fraction of enrollees are fraudulent, the dollar amounts are not small. And the risk remains whenever oversight is weak.
The GAO report reveals what many of us suspected: the Obamacare subsidy system has too many holes.
Fake people got real money. Social Security numbers were reused. Dead people may have drawn benefits. And taxpayers paid.
If we care about honest government, about protecting taxpayers, and about giving real families a fair shot — especially in states like Nevada — now is the time to demand reform.
We should call on our leaders to clean up the mess before writing another big check.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
