Do red states use more Medicaid and snap per capita than blue states

1. Medicaid: blue states generally show higher per‑capita enrollment and spending because of expansion choices

Multiple sources show that Medicaid outcomes are driven heavily by state policy choices such as whether to adopt the ACA expansion, and those choices correlate with partisan control—most blue states expanded and put more state dollars into Medicaid, producing higher per‑capita spending and enrollment in many blue states (KFF) ^[1]; analyses also find that blue states receive larger per‑capita grant funding that includes Medicaid flows ($13,200 vs $12,300 per capita in one congressional analysis) and that federal Medicaid dollars as a share of total spending can differ between red and blue states (Congressional hearing doc; Fortune) ^{[6] [2]}.

2. The “red state dependence” paradox: federal share versus state contribution

Reporting frames a paradox: red states often rely on a higher proportion of federal funding for Medicaid even while spending less state money per capita, so the picture depends on whether the question is about total per‑capita spending, federal share, or state contribution—Fortune reports that the federal government covered 73% of Medicaid expenditures in red states versus 66% in blue states, while federal per‑capita Medicaid dollars were higher in blue states in some measures ^[2].

3. SNAP: wide state variation, with both red and blue states among the highest‑reliance states

USDA’s Economic Research Service shows large inter‑state differences in SNAP participation—ranging from about 21.2% of residents in New Mexico to about 4.8% in Utah—which means high SNAP per‑capita use is not confined to one party’s states (ERS) ^[3]. State rankings and studies such as SmartAsset’s 2025 survey confirm that several high‑reliance states are in the red column while others in the blue column also have high enrollment ^[5]. At the congressional district level, one analysis found roughly 20% more SNAP households per capita in blue districts than in red districts, indicating a partisan tilt that can coexist with red states having some very high‑reliance outliers (ACA Signups) ^[4].

4. Why reports diverge: definitions, measures, and political framing

Disagreement in reporting stems from three choices: whether analyses measure enrollment, dollars per capita, federal share, or state spending; how “red” and “blue” are defined (statewide vote, district maps, legislative control); and whether outlier states like Texas and New Mexico are weighted or excluded (Milken Review; MoneyGeek; KFF) ^{[7] [8] [1]}. The Milken Institute emphasizes a “levelling” role of federal transfers that can produce a paradox where states less supportive of safety‑net policies receive more federal benefits, while MoneyGeek and others highlight that some large red states declined expansion and therefore create a large uninsured “coverage gap” ^{[7] [8]}.

5. Bottom line and data limits

The balance of evidence indicates blue states generally have higher Medicaid enrollment and per‑capita Medicaid spending driven by expansion and higher state investment, while SNAP per‑capita use is more mixed: some red states are heavy users but aggregate or district‑level measures can show higher SNAP household rates in blue areas ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. This summary is constrained by available public reporting: differences in datasets, timing (2024–2025 snapshots), and how red/blue is classified mean precise numerical claims require a specific methodological choice; the sources cited document these patterns but do not provide a single harmonized national table that answers every permutation of “use” and “per capita.” ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.