How has Minnesota’s welfare spending per person in poverty changed from 2019 to 2025 and what programs accounted for the increase?
Executive summary
Minnesota’s reported public-welfare spending per person in poverty rose sharply between 2019 and the early 2020s — roughly from the low-to-mid $30,000s in 2019 to about $40,000 in 2022 and nearly $46,000 in 2023 — with the bulk of growth driven by Medicaid (Medical Assistance) and other Health & Human Services (HHS) outlays rather than cash assistance alone [1] [2] [3] [4]. Available reporting and state budget forecasts indicate Medicaid enrollment rules, higher per-enrollee spending, long‑term care and pandemic-era federal dollars explain most of the increase, but no single authoritative public figure for “2025 per person in poverty” is present in the sources provided, so assertions about 2025 rely on forecasted drivers rather than a published 2025 census tally [5] [6] [4].
1. The headline numbers: per‑person spending climbed from roughly $32K–$36K in 2019 to ~$40K by 2022 and nearly $46K in 2023
Public reporting that relies on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances shows Minnesota ranked near the top in welfare spending adjusted for people in poverty: various American Experiment summaries put Minnesota around a little over $32,000 per person in poverty in 2019 (sometimes reported in different constant‑dollar bases) and about $34,347 in 2021 dollars for the most recent pre‑pandemic comparisons, rising to an adjusted $40,280 for 2022 and — including federal funds in the accounting — “nearly $46,000” for 2023 [1] [7] [2] [3]. These figures reflect state+local spending and in many writeups include federal pass‑throughs, so the series mixes funding sources even as it controls for the poverty population count [3] [2].
2. Why the jump happened: Medicaid (Medical Assistance) is the primary engine of growth
Multiple analyses and Minnesota budget forecasts identify Medicaid (state “Medical Assistance”) as the largest single welfare program and the principal driver of recent growth in HHS and total general‑fund spending, noting both higher per‑enrollee spending and expanded eligibility/coverage patterns in Minnesota relative to other states [4] [5]. American Experiment and state forecast documents explicitly state that Medical Assistance “received the bulk of new human services funding enacted in the 2023 session” and is projected to drive most of the growth in HHS spending through mid‑decade [4] [6]. Fiscal analyses also single out long‑term care waivers and elderly/disabled care as fast‑growing line items within Medicaid and welfare generally [6] [8].
3. Mechanics and policy choices that magnified per‑person figures: eligibility, enrollment and accounting
Minnesota’s design choices — relatively generous income eligibility limits for Medicaid, high enrollment rates among those under 200% of poverty, and program design that spends heavily per enrollee — mean that even with a relatively low poverty rate the state’s welfare spending per person in poverty appears especially large [7] [5]. Analysts warn that methodologic choices (which poverty threshold is used, whether federal pass‑throughs are counted, and constant‑dollar adjustments) can move Minnesota’s rank and dollar amounts by thousands of dollars and a few ranking places; that caveat is important when comparing 2019 to later years [8] [9].
4. What’s certain, what’s projection, and where reporting is thin
What is certain in the available reporting is the upward trajectory from 2019 through 2022–2023 and the outsized role of Medicaid/HHS spending in that increase [2] [3] [4]. What is less certain — and not published in the supplied sources — is a definitive 2025 per‑person‑in‑poverty figure from the Census or a post‑2023 audited state total; instead, 2025 descriptions in budget documents identify Medicaid and long‑term care as the forecasted growth drivers rather than offering a single consolidated “2025 per person” number [6] [4]. Alternative viewpoints exist in the literature: some observers argue that high per‑person figures overstate generosity because of measurement choices and federal pandemic funding, while others say high spending reflects deliberate policy choices to provide broader coverage and higher benefits [8] [5].