Opinion: Minnesota welfare-fraud indictments draw parallels to New York Medicaid spending
An New York Post op-ed compares Minnesota’s welfare-fraud cases with New York’s Medicaid program, urging closer scrutiny of oversight and policy responses in both states.
A New York Post opinion column argues that Minnesota’s multibillion-dollar welfare programs expose vulnerabilities that could affect New York’s Medicaid system, highlighting concerns about fraud, oversight and the use of public funds in state social programs.
Citing federal indictments in Minnesota, the column describes schemes in which bogus 'community-based' outfits billed for housing stabilization and related services for autistic individuals and the disabled, while invoices were inflated. It quotes Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson describing the case as a 'systematic and wholesale attack on our state government programs.' The piece references charges against Philadelphia-based Anthony Waddel Jefferson and Lester Brown who allegedly siphoned millions from Minnesota Medicaid. It also characterizes Minnesota as a magnet for fraud, describing a 'fraud-tourism industry' that drew people to the state to exploit programs, a point the column links to regulatory and oversight gaps.
On the New York side, the column points to about $116 billion in annual Medicaid outlays, suggesting the Empire State’s program is a larger target for fraud than Minnesota’s, though anti-fraud efforts are criticized as insufficient. It highlights New York’s Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP), a home-health program that pays relatives to assist Medicaid-eligible individuals; Hochul has faced criticism for expanding spending to roughly $11 billion a year and for hiring a single private firm to manage CDPAP, a move the column argues has not curbed fraud. The piece also notes the role of the 1199SEIU labor union in representing hundreds of thousands of personal assistants, a dynamic the column says could raise costs rather than streamline oversight. It argues that giving broad influence to nonprofit providers and organized labor may complicate efforts to control spending.
The column contends that progressive policymakers are quick to fund social programs but not always to scrutinize where the money goes or how effectively it helps those in need, suggesting that New York’s nonprofit sector may include profiteers similar to those alleged in Minnesota, though with greater political clout. It paints a picture of a welfare state with substantial financial flows and complex governance, where crowded bureaucracies and influential interest groups can obscure waste or fraud.
The piece closes by framing these issues as part of a broader debate over how to design and supervise welfare programs in high-spending states, stressing that the perspectives presented reflect the author's view and are part of a larger policy conversation about fraud prevention, program integrity, and accountability in US politics.
