What This Bill Does
H.R. 8467, the “Zeroing Out Monetary Benefits Improperly Expended Act” or “ZOMBIE Act,” would revise the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 so federal agencies focus more narrowly on improper payments that cause actual financial loss to the government. It changes reporting, risk-assessment, and oversight rules in title 31 of the U.S. Code, including new definitions, Treasury guidance, and recurring agency reports. The bill would require agencies to identify programs, assess fraud risk, and report on losses, controls, and use of tools like the Do Not Pay Initiative. It does not set a new dollar appropriation, but it changes how agencies measure and manage payment errors across federal programs.
- Treasury must develop risk-assessment guidance within 1 year.
- Agencies must assess programs before the next federal disbursement for existing programs.
- New programs must be assessed before any federal funds are disbursed.
- Reports would include estimates of payments that do and do not cause financial loss.
- High-priority programs must use tools like the Do Not Pay Initiative and meet annually with oversight officials.
Who This Bill Affects
For a typical American, this bill would mainly affect how federal agencies administer and police payment programs, not whether an individual directly receives a new benefit or loses one. If you rely on a federal program that makes payments, the bill could mean more fraud screening, more data-driven risk checks, and possibly slower or more rigorous pre-payment review before funds are released. In return, the goal is to reduce improper payments that actually cost the government money and improve the odds that program dollars go to the intended recipients.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Taxpayers and fiscal watchdogs They are likely to support the bill because it narrows oversight to payments that actually cause financial loss, which could make anti-fraud efforts more efficient and reduce wasted federal dollars. The bill’s required estimates of total losses and fraud-related losses could also make agency accountability clearer.
- Agency inspectors general and fraud investigators They may favor the bill’s emphasis on fraud risk, data assets, and coordination with Treasury, OMB, and the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. The requirement to identify prioritized risks and mitigation controls could strengthen prevention before money goes out the door.
- Program administrators in high-payment federal programs Some administrators may support clearer standards and a governmentwide formula for estimating loss because it could make reporting more consistent across agencies. The bill also distinguishes true financial loss from technical errors, which may reduce time spent on low-value compliance issues.
- State and local program administrators They may worry that more federal risk-assessment requirements and pre-disbursement reviews could add administrative burden and slow the flow of funds in programs that depend on timely payments. More detailed reporting could also require new systems or staff time.
- Benefit recipients and contractors who depend on fast payments They may be concerned that tighter fraud screening and expanded use of tools like the Do Not Pay Initiative could create delays or false flags, especially for people with complex eligibility records or documentation issues. Even when payments are ultimately correct, extra checks can make access slower.
- Administrative compliance officers They may object that the bill shifts emphasis away from broader improper-payment tracking and toward a narrower financial-loss definition, which could complicate existing compliance systems. Agencies may need to redesign processes, guidance, and reporting formats to fit the new standard.
Key Implications
-
““financial loss to the Government””
This new definition is the bill’s core filter. It means agencies would focus on payments that actually cost the federal government money, while excluding some payments that were correct in amount and recipient but failed administrative procedures.
-
““develop risk assessment guidance””
Treasury would have to create a governmentwide framework for judging payment-loss risk within 1 year. That could standardize how agencies estimate fraud and error, but it also creates a new federal planning requirement.
-
““prior to any disbursement of Federal funds””
For newly authorized programs, the bill would require risk assessment before money is first paid out. That is a preventive approach meant to catch vulnerabilities early, before losses accumulate.
-
““not less frequently than once every 3 years””
Several reviews and reports would move from annual to at least triennial timing. That reduces reporting frequency, but the reports themselves would need to be more detailed about losses, fraud, and mitigation steps.
-
““use of the Do Not Pay Initiative””
Agencies would be expected to use Treasury’s Do Not Pay system, or a successor, along with other data assets to prevent fraud or improper payments. In practice, that can improve screening but may also increase pre-payment checks for applicants and vendors.
Latest Status
June 10, 2026
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.