How much governance over GPH funds is enough?

Been awhile since any of us has posted. I thought I'd start us up again. I came across this piece in Reuters -

Global healthcare fraud costs put at $260 billion | Reuters

A study by the European Healthcare Fraud and Corruption Network (EHFCN) and the Center for Counter Fraud Services (CCFS) at Britain's Portsmouth University found that 5.59 percent of annual global health spending is lost to mistakes or corruption.

A ~5% loss is not that bad, actually. And in all the global public health work that I have done, a tremendous amount of energy, human and financial resources is spent on reducing funding fraud.

I wonder if the investment in keeping this down to 5% is worth it - or if we allowed the total amount of fraud to increase, but spend less on policing, that actually more money would get to end recipients.

This isn't an easy one - and I don't know the answer - but I think it's worth asking ourselves how much governance over funding is enough governance? Are we policing the funds too much, and wasting time and money? Or are we not policing enough, and do people think that this 5% is too much of a loss?