What steps has Minnesota taken administratively to prevent future fraud in social services and how effective are those measures?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Minnesota’s state agencies have responded to a cascade of social‑service fraud revelations by tightening administrative safeguards — from new program‑integrity rules and statutory tools to payment freezes, audits and interagency partnerships — but those measures have produced mixed results, sparking prosecutions while also disrupting services and drawing federal scrutiny [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. New enrollment and risk‑profiling rules to block bad actors at intake
The Department of Human Services has elevated 14 Medicaid provider types to “high‑risk” status, added extra screening at enrollment and revalidation, and used 2025 legislative authority to give screening staff broader power to deny suspect provider applications, steps designed to stop fraud before it starts [1] [5].
2. Cleansing the rolls: terminations and disenrollments
DHS began removing dormant and suspect providers from rosters as a basic integrity move, terminating hundreds of agencies for inactivity to get a clearer billing landscape; the agency reported terminating 761 inactive provider agencies in fall 2025 and disenrolling roughly 800 providers who hadn’t billed in over a year [1] [6].
3. Payment suspension and targeted freezes to blunt ongoing theft
Administratively, Minnesota has used payment withholds and proactive suspensions when fraud is suspected and — in a high‑profile move — paused payments to providers across 14 Medicaid programs and ordered third‑party audits of billing to stop suspected large‑scale abuse, an aggressive approach that aims to preserve funds while investigations proceed [1] [2].
4. Building investigative muscle and interagency coordination
The Walz administration has pushed administrative changes to improve data‑sharing and investigations: legislation in 2025 increased DHS’s ability to share investigative data, an executive order and bills proposed new management and operational reforms, DHS now refers credible cases to the state Medicaid Fraud Control Unit and federal partners, and the governor announced hiring a director of program integrity at the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and a contract with a forensic accounting firm to create an anti‑fraud toolkit [1] [7] [5] [8] [9].
5. Legal and statutory backing: more tools for investigators
State statutes already outline DHS duties, investigator training and fraud prevention mechanisms, and recent legislative actions in 2025 expanded program‑integrity authorities and enforcement avenues intended to strengthen administrative investigations and prosecutions [10] [5].
6. Measurable outcomes: prosecutions, expanded probes and still‑unresolved scope
Those administrative steps have helped generate criminal referrals and federal indictments: by December 2025 more than 90 people had been charged and prosecutors described investigations into billions of dollars across 14 programs, demonstrating that administrative triage fed law enforcement cases [3] [11]. At the same time, HHS has sought records and launched its own review of Minnesota’s federal fund use, signaling that administrative fixes have not fully restored federal confidence [4].
7. Effectiveness limits and unintended costs
While the measures caught suspects and halted suspect payments, they also had tangible collateral effects: advocates and disability attorneys say payment pauses and program crackdowns have left people with disabilities without services they are legally entitled to, and critics argue some administrative moves were modest or slow given the scale of alleged fraud [12] [8]. Legislators and watchdogs acknowledge progress but stress more is needed to rebuild controls and service continuity [5].
8. Political context and the challenge ahead
Administrative changes have unfolded amid intense political pressure — state leaders frame reforms as necessary to restore trust while opponents say the response has been uneven or politicized — and the sheer size and complexity of the fraud allegations (described by prosecutors as “industrial‑scale”) mean administrative reforms must be paired with sustained auditing, prosecutions and federal cooperation to be fully effective [3] [11] [9].
Conclusion: calibrated gains, incomplete victory
Minnesota has layered administrative safeguards — screening, risk designations, payment freezes, audits, new interagency tools and legal referrals — that have helped detect and halt suspect billing and produced high‑profile prosecutions, but the measures remain a work in progress: they have not yet fully restored federal confidence, have disrupted legitimate services for vulnerable Minnesotans, and will need continued legislative, investigative and operational follow‑through to be judged fully effective [1] [2] [4] [12] [3].