Punishing the Poor: How SNAP and Medicaid Work Requirements Fail Their Stated Goals
The Ideological Battle Over Work Requirements
As congressional Republicans advance President Donald Trump’s economic agenda, proposals for expanded work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid have resurfaced. These measures raise a fundamental question: Are lawmakers crafting policy based on evidence or ideological assumptions about poverty that ignore the complex realities facing low-income Americans?
Proponents argue that work requirements encourage employment and self-sufficiency. However, extensive economic research reveals a different story: These requirements rarely increase employment while often stripping essential benefits from society’s most vulnerable citizens. Furthermore, they create bureaucratic barriers that disproportionately harm those already struggling to make ends meet.
From a policy perspective, work requirements reinforce a punitive approach to welfare—framing public assistance as a liability rather than a vital investment in economic support for vulnerable communities. This comprehensive analysis examines recent economic research on the effectiveness of SNAP and Medicaid work requirements on labor market outcomes and program participation rates.
America’s Divided Approach to Welfare Policy
The United States stands uniquely divided on welfare philosophy, with Republicans and Democrats holding fundamentally different views on government assistance. As the country faces new proposals that would disproportionately impact low-income Americans while benefiting wealthier citizens, this division produces real consequences for vulnerable populations.
America’s polarized stance on welfare stems from an economic system centered around individualism and market-based solutions. Unlike countries at similar development levels, the American model positions welfare assistance and market efficiency as opposing forces. This framing transforms welfare into a moral battleground rather than a practical policy tool, making it difficult to create stable, effective systems that protect vulnerable citizens while promoting broader social and economic goals.
Republicans typically favor limited, conditional assistance with strict work requirements, viewing welfare as a temporary safety net that risks creating dependency. Democrats generally support more comprehensive programs with fewer restrictions, seeing welfare as essential protection against structural inequalities and economic exclusion. This partisan divide creates a policy pendulum, with welfare programs expanding or contracting based on which party holds power rather than evolving through evidence-based, deliberative processes.
Many developed nations take a fundamentally different approach. European social democracies generally accept baseline responsibility to provide healthcare, housing assistance, and income support as fundamental rights. These societies view welfare as social insurance benefiting the entire community—not just recipients.
The Reality Behind SNAP Work Requirements
Work requirements for SNAP and Medicaid are built on the assumption that recipients avoid employment and need bureaucratic pressure—a “stick”—to enter the workforce. Research consistently contradicts this assumption.
Most Recipients Already Work
Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) constitute approximately 12% of all SNAP recipient households, with most already employed. SNAP primarily helps workers by supplementing low or irregular earnings and supporting them temporarily during job transitions. Most ABAWDs receiving SNAP work in occupations or industries with low pay and unstable hours—precisely what makes them eligible for assistance in the first place.
Research Shows No Employment Gains
Recent studies on SNAP work requirements reveal consistent patterns: They do not increase employment, have negligible impacts on earnings, and significantly reduce program participation.
One recent study using linked administrative data and a regression discontinuity design found that work requirements led to a 23-percentage-point increase in program exits. This meant 64% of eligible participants subject to requirements left the program. Overall participation dropped by 53%, with homeless individuals disproportionately excluded. Critically, the study found no significant increase in employment rates and negligible evidence of increasing earnings around the eligibility threshold.
Another recent analysis found similar results, with no meaningful effects of general work requirements or “employment and training” requirements on labor supply among SNAP recipients. These findings suggest that work requirements primarily increase compliance costs for vulnerable individuals and risk excluding those who most need protection.
Administrative Burdens Create Barriers
The administrative burden of work requirements further complicates matters. SNAP participants must submit periodic recertifications (typically every six to twelve months), requiring substantial documentation of earnings, expenses, and compliance with work rules. Research shows most program attrition occurs at these deadlines—not because recipients have gained stable employment, but due to bureaucratic obstacles and reporting failures.
The most stringent version of work requirements (the “ABAWD” rule) restricts benefits to able-bodied adults aged 18 to 49 without dependents unless they work 80 hours monthly. Those failing to meet this threshold are limited to just three months of benefits within a three-year period. Studies consistently show these restrictions disproportionately increase program exits without improving employment outcomes.
Medicaid Work Requirements: Harming Health Without Helping Employment
Advocates of Medicaid work requirements argue that tying health coverage to employment would encourage labor force participation and reduce welfare dependency. However, this approach ignores that the vast majority of low-income Americans already struggle to access adequate healthcare, and restricting Medicaid would only deepen this exclusion.
Most Recipients Already Work or Cannot Work
Approximately two-thirds of non-elderly adults on Medicaid are already working. Most others cannot work due to disabilities or caregiving responsibilities. The underlying assumption that Medicaid recipients are avoiding employment is simply not supported by data.
The Arkansas Experiment: A Cautionary Tale
Arkansas implemented Medicaid work requirements in 2018, providing a real-world test case. The results were devastating: 18,000 low-income individuals lost coverage in under a year—not necessarily because they failed to meet the 80-hour work requirement, but because they struggled with the complex reporting system.
A subsequent study in Health Affairs found no significant increase in employment among those subject to the requirements. However, those who lost coverage faced severe consequences: 50% reported serious medical debt, 56% delayed care due to costs, and 64% postponed taking prescribed medications.
Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Populations
Medicaid work requirements disproportionately harm people with disabilities, women, rural residents, and individuals with unstable, low-wage jobs, according to research from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Even with exemptions for some groups, evidence shows many eligible individuals still lost coverage due to administrative hurdles, lack of internet access, or difficulty proving their exemptions.
The Congressional Budget Office concluded that Medicaid work requirements in a 2023 House bill would lead to coverage loss with “no change in employment or hours worked.” This assessment directly contradicts the stated purpose of such requirements.
Work Requirements: Barrier to Access, Not Path to Self-Sufficiency
The persistence of work requirements is not rooted in evidence but in a deep-seated American ideology that treats poverty as a moral failing rather than a systemic issue. Since the 1970s, welfare debates have been shaped by racialized and classist stereotypes—popularizing myths of the “welfare queen” or the “lazy poor” who must be nudged or disciplined into work.
This narrative ignores the reality that most safety net recipients are already working or face legitimate barriers to employment. By framing public assistance as an obstacle rather than a support system, work requirements reinforce exclusion rather than opportunity, punishing those who struggle instead of empowering them to succeed.
Evidence-Based Alternatives
If the goal is truly to help low-income individuals become productive workforce members, punitive measures that assume unwillingness to work are counterproductive. Evidence-based policy would focus on removing structural barriers to employment through:
- Investment in job training programs tailored to local employment opportunities
- Expanded access to affordable childcare that enables parents to work
- Transportation assistance that helps people reach jobs, particularly in rural areas
- Adoption of a livable minimum wage that ensures work provides financial stability
- Simplified program administration that reduces barriers to participation
These initiatives have consistently shown better results for increasing labor force participation and economic mobility than coercive welfare restrictions.
Evidence Must Guide Policy
The debate about stricter work requirements ultimately functions more as a cost-cutting mechanism than an effective policy for increasing labor market participation and economic mobility. Research consistently shows these requirements fail to achieve their stated goals while creating substantial harm.
As Congress debates these proposals, lawmakers should prioritize evidence over ideology. The data clearly indicates that work requirements for SNAP and Medicaid are ineffective at promoting employment and self-sufficiency. Instead, they function primarily as barriers that exclude vulnerable Americans from essential support systems.
True welfare reform would recognize that poverty is not just about who loses out in the economic system, but why the system produces losers in the first place. Rather than punishing those caught in poverty’s grip, effective policy would build ladders of opportunity that provide the necessary resources for stability and upward mobility.
