The federal government in late June released state-by-state data on payment errors in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Under new rules passed in President Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ last year, the report suggests major consequences for Pennsylvania, its taxpayers and SNAP beneficiaries starting next year.
“When the cost-sharing requirement for SNAP benefit costs begins on October 1, 2027, the share of benefits that each state will be required to pay is based on the state’s SNAP ‘error rate’ for either fiscal year 2025 or 2026, at the option of the state,” said Katie Bergh, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ senior policy analyst on food assistance. “Pennsylvania’s fiscal year 2025 SNAP payment error rate was 9.21 percent (comprised of an 8.03 percent overpayment rate and a 1.18 percent underpayment rate).”
This new rule could require the state to pay 10% of SNAP benefit costs, which the Center estimates to be roughly $410 million. Pennsylvania has lowered its error rate substantially over the last three years and may face a reduced cost-sharing requirement if it continues to lower its error rate during fiscal year 2026. SNAP, known informally as food stamps, provides monthly payments to help low-income residents to buy food.
However, fiscal year 2026 error rates will not be finalized by the Department of Agriculture until late June next year, coinciding with Pennsylvania’s budget deadline.
“The Trump Administration is choosing to give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of hungry Pennsylvanians.” – Brandon Cwalina, Pennsylvania Department of Human Services Spokesperson
“Because states generally must balance their budgets each year, covering these significant new costs will require states to raise additional revenue or cut state spending on other programs and services like K-12 education, public safety, or transportation,” said Bergh. “If a state cannot fully cover its required cost share, it would need to further restrict access to SNAP or possibly withdraw from the program entirely.”
In a recent survey by the American Public Human Services Association, 30 percent of responding states identified narrowing eligibility policies as a potential risk of this cost shift, 11 percent identified a potential risk that they will withdraw from SNAP, and 5 percent indicated a potential risk that they will temporarily pause SNAP operations.
“The Trump Administration is choosing to give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of hungry Pennsylvanians,” said Brandon Cwalina, Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) spokesperson. “SNAP benefits are entirely federally funded and total approximately $365 million each month for Pennsylvania, but HR1 created new pressures and rules that are jeopardizing and destabilizing this vital program, leaving vulnerable people without food. Cuts to federal SNAP funding will shift these costs onto states – costs that we have made clear we cannot backfill.”
FACT FOCUS: Why Nearly 4.3 Million People Are No Longer Receiving Food Stamps
PA DHS is choosing to feed Pennsylvanians in need. Cwalina said that’s why Governor Josh Shapiro has steadily increased funding for food security since he was elected, including securing an $11 million increase for food security in the final 2025-26 budget and proposing the same in the 26-27 budget.
It’s also why the Shapiro Administration has taken action to significantly lower their SNAP payment error rate. In just two years, Cwalina said their error rate has dropped by nearly 50% compared to what it was before Governor Shapiro took office, and for the second year in a row Pennsylvania’s error rate is better than the national average.
“Congress has an opportunity to correct this threat to life-saving food assistance by using the Farm Bill renewal to delay changes to cost-sharing and recognize the progress states are making to ensure our most vulnerable can feed themselves and their families,” said Cwalina.
The Governor’s proposed budget for 2026-27 calls for sustaining the $11 million increase, which includes:
- $3 million for the State Food Purchase Program and $1 million for the Pennsylvania Agricultural Surplus System (PASS)
- $2 million for a new State Food Bucks program to supplement SNAP
- $5 million in new funding to Pennsylvania food banks.
Pennsylvania historically was a leader in maintaining an error rate below or near the national average.
“A state with an error rate between 6 to 8 percent must pay for 5 percent of SNAP benefits or an estimated $220 million annual state cost share for PA,” said Cwalina. “A state with an error rate between 8 to 10 percent must pay for 10 percent of SNAP benefits, or $440 million annually, and an error rate of 10 percent or more causes states to pay for 15 percent of SNAP benefits, or $660 million annually.”
“For Pennsylvania, the approximate 2028 cost shift amount based on the FY 2025 error rate is $410 million,” said Teon Hayes, senior policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy. “However, the actual cost shift amount will depend on each state’s FY 2025 OR 2026 error rate, as well as anticipated SNAP benefit costs in FY 2028. Therefore, this estimate is not final and could definitely change.”
This is likely to be one of the most significant consequences of the new law.
“States are required to balance their budgets, so absorbing new SNAP benefit costs means those dollars to support the program have to come from somewhere,” said Hayes. “This could potentially lead to stricter eligibility rules, reduced benefit amounts, or both. States will have to make difficult decisions about reducing spending in other areas or finding ways to lower program costs.”
Some states may also look for ways to reduce administrative costs or limit participation, which could make it more difficult for eligible households to access nutrition assistance. The Center for Law and Social Policy is already seeing evidence of this concern, as SNAP participation has declined by more than 4 million people since last July.
“This decline is not because people no longer need assistance or because food insecurity has disappeared,” said Hayes. “Rather, it reflects the growing barriers families are facing in accessing a program designed to support them.”
The new funding structure also fundamentally changes SNAP’s role as one of the nation’s strongest economic stabilizers. “Historically, SNAP has expanded during recessions, helping families afford food while supporting local grocery stores and businesses,” said Hayes. “Now that states must contribute to benefit costs, they may not have the resources to respond when the need is highest, directly undermining the program’s effectiveness in fighting food insecurity.”
There are also important lessons from history. After TANF was converted into a block grant in 1996, many states responded to fiscal pressures by adding administrative barriers that reduced participation tremendously. Not because families no longer needed assistance, but because accessing the program became more difficult.
“The result was a weaker public benefits system, and more families left behind,” said Hayes. “While SNAP remains a different program, policymakers should recognize that shifting more financial responsibility to states puts states in a difficult position where they must balance managing costs with ensuring eligible families can access the assistance they need.”
Hayes said the consequences of reduced access to nutrition assistance will not only be felt today but could have long-term, generational impacts on health, economic stability, and overall well-being.
Under the new structure established by H.R. 1, Pennsylvania could be required to pay a portion of SNAP benefit costs based on its SNAP payment error rate.
“That amount could increase or decrease depending on how much Pennsylvania actually spends on SNAP benefits in FY 2028 and whether its FY 2026 error rate places the state in a different cost-sharing tier,” said Rachel Johnson, Director, Economic Analysis at the Center for American Progress.
Under this new structure, Pennsylvania would need to budget for a new state share of SNAP benefit costs.
“This would come on top of increased state costs from the reduced federal match for SNAP administrative expenses, which was also established under H.R. 1,” said Johnson. “To cover these costs, the state could identify new revenue or shift spending from other programs or services to SNAP. The state could also make policy or programmatic changes aimed at lowering future payment error rates and avoiding higher cost-sharing tiers, such as investing in staff training, additional hiring, or data modernization efforts that improve payment accuracy.”
Some strategies for lowering the payment error rate could create real risks for eligible SNAP households. For example, increasing documentation or verification requirements could make the process more burdensome for applicants, participants, and state staff.
“That could delay benefits or cause eligible people to lose assistance while paperwork is being processed,” said Johnson. “While a smaller caseload would reduce total benefit costs and therefore lower the state’s required contribution, that would mean Pennsylvania is reducing costs by serving fewer low-income households rather than by making SNAP more accurate or effective.”
The Associated Press contributed reporting to this article.
