Keith Riler FAITH Magazine September – October 2012
In his popular paper in our March issue, Keith Riler demonstrated a very close correlation over many years between Planned Parenthood's US government funding and the abortions it performs. In addition he demonstrated a tight correlation between Planned Parenthood's contraceptive distribution and its abortions, in direct contravention of the oft-heard comment that contraception reduces abortions. He suggested that deceptive marketing, particularly aimed at young teens, and the known link between contraception and increased sexual activity were key factors in understanding Planned Parenthood's abortion-driven revenue growth. In this paper he offers a deeper understanding of the funding - abortion correlation, involving alleged frauds now brought to light by several whistle-blower lawsuits.
Often the simplest answer is the true one. If recent claims  made against Planned Parenthood by the Alliance Defense Fund ("ADF") and the American Center for Law and Justice ("ACLJ") are accurate, a simple answer solves a prior mystery.
Strong Taxpayer-Abortion Link
A startlingly high correlation between Planned Parenthood's abortions and its government funding was documented this year:
Planned Parenthood's abortions are very highly positively correlated with the amount of government funds received by the company, at 99% correlation. ... These results contradict the oft-heard wisdom that Planned Parenthood's government support is unrelated to its abortion business. At 99% correlation, Planned Parenthood's government funding and abortions are statistically one and the same.
The charts below confirm that Planned Parenthood's abortion business is highly related to its government funding. The scatter plot demonstrates a near-linear relationship and the bar graph shows that for every $1 m [£640,000] of taxpayer dollars, a consistent average of 949 abortions results:
Although the earlier work highlighted the unusually high 99% correlation (social scientists get excited over mere 60-70% correlations), it deferred offering an explanation:
There is an apparent inconsistency between (i) a 99% correlation and (ii) Planned Parenthood's strong assertions that no connection exists between taxpayer support and abortions. The assertions don't square with the numbers.... It is also possible there is a more explicit connection between abortion and Planned Parenthood's grants, given the strength of the correlation; however, such an analysis is beyond the scope of this paper.
Now, an Explanation?
We may now have an answer that is both obvious and simple. A recent lawsuit, brought by a former Planned Parenthood manager and the ADF, alleges that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast (PPGC):
filed at least 87,075 false, fraudulent, or ineligible claims with the Texas Women's Health Program. As a result, Planned Parenthood wrongfully received and retained reimbursements totalling more than $5.7m.
Paragraphs 80-106 of the lawsuit are particularly informative
and suggest that Planned Parenthood is no charity, just another profit-seeking entity, offering a lethal product and fraudulently billing for it. Paragraph 93 explains:
Planned Parenthood...presented false, fraudulent and ineligible claims to the United States, the State of Texas ... by making an additional false notation reflecting a family planning purpose ...
An earlier case, brought in California by a former chief financial officer, made comparable claims:
Planned Parenthood (PP) affiliates in California, including the one for which relator worked (PP of Los Angeles), knowingly overbilled the state government, and through it the federal government, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, for birth control drugs and devices provided to clients.
And a more recent case brought in Iowa by a Planned Parenthood centre manager echoed the California claims:
Planned Parenthood clinic director Sue Thayer filed the lawsuit against the abortion giant's Iowa affiliate accusing it of submitting "repeated false, fraudulent, and/or ineligible claims for reimbursements" to Medicaid ...
Finally, detailed allegations (paragraphs 22-35) are made in a third case, also brought by a former employee:
PPGC also trained its employees to create fraudulent and misleading patient chart entries so as to obtain reimbursement for services for which WHP and Medicaid would otherwise not allow payment. One notable example of this practice relates to PPGC policies for obtaining payment for abortion-related services. WHP, Medicaid, and some other government programmes do not allow payment for abortion-related services including "follow-up visits" after an elective abortion procedure. The following is a direct quote from a staff meeting memorandum given to clinic employees on 22 January 2009:
POST AB[ORTION] VISITS:
We must work these clients in! This visit is self-pay. Quote the self-pay price then ask if she needs any other services such as birth control. If she is interested, screen for WHP or Title XX and offer the WWE [Well Woman Exam]. If the client is getting on birth control make this the focus of the visit and put a note in the chief complaints that the client had a surgical or medical abortion "x" weeks ago.
If Planned Parenthood in fact defrauded taxpayers using "Post AB Visits," then the correlation between Planned Parenthood's abortions and government payments should be high because "post AB visits" must follow ABs (abortions). Statistically, it is hard to imagine that a 99% correlation between Planned Parenthood's abortions and its government funding could reflect anything but a sustained and concerted effort. Such an effort would be illegal in many ways.
Fraud = 99% Correlation = $1,522 per Life?
These lawsuits describe just such a widespread and concerted effort. Allegedly, Planned Parenthood sought government funding for abortion by creating and billing for fraudulent services - which billing would substantially increase Planned Parenthood's revenue per head aborted. In ACLJ's words, Planned Parenthood:
knowingly engaged in continued violations of both federal and state law by adopting and implementing company-wide billing policies intended to maximise revenue received from government health care programmes ... by expressly requiring PPGC's clinics ... to bill the federal and state governments for reimbursement for (i) medical services that were never actually rendered; (ii) medical services that, although rendered, were known by Defendant to be medically unnecessary; and (iii) abortion-related services that PPGC knew were not properly reimbursable through these government programmes.
When the 99% correlation is properly considered, Planned Parenthood's per-head abortion realisations increase to $1,522 per life, or $501.4m in 2010.
Taxpayer Funding - More Correlated With Abortion Than With Contraception
The earlier analysis also observed that Planned Parenthood's government funding correlated more strongly with its abortions (at R=99%) than with its contraception activities (although still strong, at R=77%-83%). Given that government payments are supposedly contraception-related, one would expect the contraception-funding correlation to have been higher. Not so.
The information alleged in the lawsuits could explain the shortfall. If Planned Parenthood was distributing contraception services legitimately and fraudulently claiming for abortion services (really just dollars for abortion follow-ups), then the inflated billing would weaken the correlation between contraception and government funding.
Overstated Contraception Reporting?
By plotting reported Planned Parenthood contraception services (y-axis) and government funding (x-axis, in millions) for 2002-2009, we see a linear trend line indicating a 1.38 million y-axis intersection. This means the best linear model of Planned Parenthood's contraception activities calls for Planned Parenthood to "distribute" 1.38 million contraception units even while receiving no government funds (a y-axis intercept means a zero value for the x variable, being government payments).
Although Planned Parenthood might distribute contraception to private-pay clients, that distribution is unlikely to be meaningful. Therefore, if the lawsuit claims are valid, these 1.38 million uncompensated contraception services might be better viewed as the annual contraception services fraudulently recorded under the alleged schemes described above. Between the lure of taxpayer cash and the predictable Democrat accolades about "healthcare" (even more cash later), Planned Parenthood must be sorely tempted to overstate contraception activity.
In summary, earlier analysis highlighted the very unusual 99% positive correlation between government funding and Planned Parenthood's abortions. This correlation is statistically rare, but the fraud described in the numerous lawsuits could explain it. The mystery may be solved, making a simple explanation the true one - "Planned Parenthood improperly sought reimbursement from the government for abortion-related services."
Although unproven, the multitude and consistency of employee whistleblowing is eye opening. The old adage there's no honour among thieves is a reflection of the broader truth that you can't practice vice virtuously. Don't be surprised if those who permanently render babies lifeless might also lie, cheat and steal.
On a final note, by implementing $1/month abortions, Obamacare has upended longstanding law prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for abortions, by requiring that taxpayers fund abortions through private pay insurance. Now we and aborting mothers pay $1, with insurance companies paying the balance (about $500), all of which Planned Parenthood receives for each abortion. If mobile phones became ubiquitous once made cheaper, imagine what will happen with $1 -abortions. Obamacare thus moves Planned Parenthood into the legitimate unfettered flow of taxpayer money by replacing one middleman, the US government, with another, private pay insurance companies. Is it any wonder Planned Parenthood just purchased $1.4m in Barack Obama re-election ads?
 2010 excluded: PP changed its Medicaid accounting in 2010 and ceased reporting
condom distribution, making results non-comparable without further adjustment.
 The Title X government programme covers customers at or below 250% of the
poverty line. Planned Parenthood has indicated that 75% of its customers are at or
below the 150% mark, indicating PP is receiving taxpayer money for most of its