Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What measures have been most effective at reducing fraud in SNAP compared to fraud-prevention efforts in Medicaid and unemployment insurance?
Executive summary
SNAP’s measurable improper-payment rate has been large in dollar terms — USDA/FNS reported $102 million in detected SNAP fraud and approvals of 226,000 fraudulent claims in Q1 FY2025 (reporting and commentary cited in Newsweek and Fox) [1] [2]; GAO- and USDA-linked analysis estimates about 11.7% of SNAP payments were improper in FY2023, roughly $10.5 billion [3]. By contrast, Medicaid anti‑fraud relies heavily on state Medicaid Fraud Control Units (recoveries about $1.4 billion in FY2024) and program integrity tools [4] [5], while unemployment insurance saw very large pandemic-era losses (GAO estimates $100–$135 billion fraud during COVID-era programs) and has been a long-standing “high‑risk” program for integrity failures [6] [7].
1. SNAP: data analytics, QC reviews and corrective action plans drove measurable detection efforts
USDA/FNS and GAO reporting show SNAP uses Quality Control reviews, the National Payment Error Rate (NPER), and state corrective action plans (CAPs) to identify, quantify and reduce improper payments; GAO reported an estimated FY2023 SNAP improper‑payment rate of 11.7% (about $10.5 billion) and emphasized CAPs and regional monitoring as key tools states use to address root causes [3] [8]. Public reporting of quarterly SNAP fraud counts and dollar values (226,000 fraudulent claims and $102 million in first‑quarter FY2025 losses per USDA‑cited media summaries) has increased political pressure for operational changes [2] [1].
2. Medicaid: provider investigations and dedicated prosecutors yield recoveries, but fraud is concentrated among providers
Medicaid program‑integrity work centers on provider fraud, prosecuted and investigated by state Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs); MFCUs recovered about $1.4 billion in FY2024 and are presented as high‑leverage — roughly $3.46 recovered per $1 spent — showing enforcement and criminal prosecution as effective levers for large recoveries [4] [5]. KFF and other analyses stress that most monetary losses in Medicaid stem from provider billing and that federal‑state checks and audits are the core prevention/detection strategy [9].
3. Unemployment insurance (UI): quick payments to claimants exposed systemic vulnerabilities and required verification tools
GAO concluded pandemic‑era UI fraud was very large — an estimated $100–$135 billion (11–15% of pandemic UI outlays) — and placed the UI system on the High Risk List, which pushed states and the Department of Labor to add verification software and other detection measures [6] [7]. Pandemic lessons show that when programs prioritize speed over verification, fraud rises; recovery and verification investments (identity checks, cross‑matching, and law‑enforcement coordination) were the primary way states later reduced losses [6] [10].
4. Which measures show the most comparative effectiveness?
Available reporting highlights three repeatable, effective approaches across programs: (a) targeted analytics and quality‑control sampling (SNAP’s NPER, GAO/USDA reviews) to measure improper payments and direct CAPs [3] [8]; (b) dedicated investigative/prosecutorial units (MFCUs in Medicaid) that produce high dollar recoveries per dollar spent [4] [5]; and (c) stronger front‑end identity and eligibility verification to prevent mass‑scale fraud in fast‑paced programs like UI [6] [10]. Each approach addresses different fraud types: recipient/retailer trafficking and payment errors in SNAP, provider billing in Medicaid, and identity/eligibility fraud in UI [8] [9] [6].
5. Tradeoffs and political context shape which tools are used
Policy choices reflect tradeoffs: SNAP’s reliance on state administration and federal reimbursement rules create incentives and constraints — critics argue states lack incentives to aggressively pursue fraud because administrative fees and federal coverage blunt fiscal pain (Texas Policy argues states split administrative fees) [11]. Conversely, Medicaid and UI have grown enforcement units and federal audits because fraud there is often provider‑level (Medicaid) or systemically exposed by emergency expansion (UI) — political momentum and visible losses often drive investment in particular tools [4] [6] [9].
6. Limitations and gaps in available reporting
Current sources quantify recoveries and estimated improper payments but do not offer a unified, apples‑to‑apples effectiveness metric for specific interventions across programs; for example, GAO gives detailed UI pandemic estimates but not direct comparisons to SNAP countermeasures’ return on investment, and USDA/GAO reporting on SNAP emphasizes improper payments broadly rather than only intentional fraud [6] [3]. Available sources do not mention program‑wide randomized trials or standardized ROI studies that directly compare outcomes of identity verification vs. prosecutions vs. analytics across the three programs (not found in current reporting).
7. Bottom line for policymakers and the public
The evidence in these sources shows that no single tool is universally superior: analytics and QC drive detection and measurement in SNAP [3], MFCUs and law enforcement produce high Medicaid recoveries [4] [5], and identity/eligibility verification prevented massive UI program losses when implemented [6]. Policymakers should match the intervention to the dominant fraud vector in each program and demand comparable measurement (NPER‑style sampling or GAO‑level estimates) to judge effectiveness — something current reporting highlights but does not fully standardize across programs [3] [6].