DHHS warns tougher SNAP verification in HB 1797 could raise error rates; advocates urge caution
Loading...
Summary
Department of Health and Human Services officials told the Senate committee that HB 1797's proposed lottery and out-of-state purchase cross-matches, shorter certification periods and mandatory SAVE checks would increase administrative costs and risk higher SNAP payment error rates; hunger and legal-aid groups urged the committee to avoid cutting categorical eligibility.
Representative Jim Kocall (Hillsborough District 32) introduced House Bill 1797 as a package intended to tighten SNAP work requirements and improve program integrity by expanding data matches — including a proposed lottery cross-match and more frequent SAVE checks — and by shortening certification periods.
The department’s view: Chris Santonello, associate commissioner at the Department of Health and Human Services, and counsel Bridal Clark told the committee that New Hampshire has roughly 70,000 SNAP recipients and that proposed system changes (for example, an electronic lottery cross-match) would require significant system work (DHHS estimated a lottery cross-match system change at roughly $1.6 million in the fiscal note) and could demand additional staff. DHHS said current SNAP fraud rates are very low (about 0.01 percent in the last federal fiscal year) and that increased manual processes and shortened recertification windows could raise the state’s payment error rate, which the department currently reported at about 7.57 percent.
What advocates said: Witnesses opposing the bill included Lisa Beaudoin (New Hampshire Council of Churches), Laura Milliken (New Hampshire Hunger Solutions) and Raymond Burke (New Hampshire Legal Assistance). They argued HB 1797 would create administrative burdens that could cut thousands of households from SNAP — DHHS and witnesses estimated that eliminating categorical eligibility could affect roughly 20,000 households — and that the state should first finish study work on SB 615 rather than leap to immediate implementation.
Key questions from lawmakers: Senators asked whether the bill goes beyond federal requirements, how many full-time positions would be needed to implement the changes, and whether shorter certification periods would hurt timeliness and increase errors. DHHS and witnesses repeatedly emphasized staffing shortages, manual workarounds and the risk that increased verification could unintentionally remove eligible people from the program.
Next steps: The committee heard extensive testimony and questions but took no final recorded vote on HB 1797 during the session. DHHS and advocates asked the Legislature to weigh the administrative costs, error-rate risks and impacts on food security before moving forward.
