How does the SSA detect and prevent fraud related to deceased recipients?
Executive summary
The Social Security Administration (SSA) uses a mix of data-matching, new phone‑call behavior analysis tools, Office of Inspector General (OIG) criminal investigations, and programmatic blocks (like direct‑deposit and eServices locks) to detect and stop payments tied to deceased people; Treasury’s pilot using the Full Death Master File helped prevent and recover $31 million in five months [1][2]. Recent 2025 phone‑claim anti‑fraud tools flagged over 20,000 Social Security numbers for review between March 29 and April 26, but internal reviews found only two likely fraudulent telephone claims among more than 110,000 cases [3][4].
1. How SSA looks for dead people who are still getting paid
The SSA relies on death reporting from multiple partners (funeral homes, financial institutions, federal and state agencies), its Death Master File and programmatic integrity reviews that spotlight very old records, then matches those records against benefit rolls to stop payments when a death is identified [1][5]. Treasury’s pilot showed that broader access to the Full Death Master File boosted matches by 139% and produced immediate recoveries and prevention — $31 million blocked or recovered in five months — showing how timely death data materially reduces improper payments [1].
2. New tech at the phone line: behavior analysis and third‑party tools
In April 2025 the SSA began running enhanced anti‑fraud checks on telephone claims using behavior analysis and third‑party fraud services (reported vendors include TransUnion and PinDrop), allowing most claims to proceed but sending flagged calls to in‑person identity proofing or additional holds [6][4]. The agency and press accounts say the system flagged tens of thousands of instances requesting phone changes to direct deposit; SSA narrowed which claim types were screened after internal pushback, and later removed a three‑day hold for many phone claims [3][4].
3. What happens when a deceased beneficiary is suspected or detected
When SSA identifies someone as deceased it stops payments immediately and refers suspected misuse to the OIG; the OIG has criminal investigative authority and handles categories including deceased payee fraud and representative‑payee misuse [5][2][7]. SSA also adds prevention tools like the Direct Deposit Fraud Prevention block and eServices blocks to prevent changes to accounts when misuse is suspected [8].
4. Limits of the data: missing deaths and aged records cause gaps
Audits and reporting show millions of records lack death information in SSA’s systems; the OIG found large gaps and urged fixes because missing death entries hinder fraud detection and program integrity, and SSA has pushed back at times saying death information is unavailable or costly to resolve [9][10]. Independent reporting warns that thousands of very old records remain in need of reconciliation, meaning some improper payments or identity misuse can persist until reconciled [10][5].
5. Results so far — prevention vs. disruption
Early metrics are mixed: SSA’s new phone checks flagged over 20,000 SSNs for possible direct‑deposit fraud and ran hundreds of thousands of phone‑claim checks, but internal documents show only two likely phone‑claim frauds among more than 110,000 reviewed, prompting the agency to narrow and revise procedures to avoid unnecessary delays [3][4]. Treasury’s death‑data pilot, by contrast, produced clear dollar outcomes — $31 million prevented/recovered in five months — illustrating that quality death data yields faster fiscal results than blunt flagging of phone activity [1][4].
6. Where victims, families and advocates fit in — reporting and remedies
SSA asks families and institutions to report deaths (call 1‑800‑772‑1213) so benefits can be stopped and survivor claims processed, and provides formal paths to recover or dispute payments when errors occur; victims of suspected fraud should report to SSA’s OIG for investigation [11][12][13]. Consumer and industry guides also urge credit‑bureau alerts and closing accounts to limit identity theft after death [11][14].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit tradeoffs
Agency officials and press releases emphasize modernization and fraud reduction via tech and data sharing; watchdogs and audits stress that missing death records and operational changes have real costs — false flags can delay legitimate claims and initial phone‑screening found very little fraud, producing internal pushback and subsequent policy rollbacks [15][3][9]. Treasury and proponents argue that wider, permitted use of the Full Death Master File drives measurable savings and stronger prevention [1].
Limitations and unanswered items: available sources do not mention exact algorithmic thresholds, false‑positive rates beyond the two‑claim figure, or how long flagged beneficiaries typically wait for resolution in aggregate; those operational details are not present in current reporting (not found in current reporting).