Three U.S. senators are demanding answers from Equifax after new reporting and investor statements revealed how the credit reporting giant stands to profit from Republican-backed work requirements for Medicaid and food assistance. The inquiry comes as federal policy changes are projected to push millions of low-income Americans off public benefits while forcing states to rely even more heavily on a private company that critics say has near-monopoly power over income verification.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont sent a letter Tuesday to Equifax CEO Mark Begor questioning the company’s anticipated gains from provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, legislation passed by congressional Republicans that imposes work requirements on recipients of Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The requirements are set to take effect in January 2027 and will require states to verify far more frequently whether beneficiaries meet monthly work, volunteer, or education thresholds.
The senators argue that the same red tape designed to restrict access to healthcare and food assistance is poised to generate new revenue streams for Equifax, which sells income and employment data to government agencies through a product known as the Work Number. “But for Equifax, these new threats to Americans’ food assistance and health insurance coverage ‘represent the chance to become a lot richer,’” the lawmakers wrote, quoting a New York Times investigation published in November.
Equifax’s Work Number is already deeply embedded in the administration of public benefits. Through exclusive contracts with employers and payroll firms, the company has assembled a database covering at least 99 million workers and more than 750 million employment records. State caseworkers can enter a Social Security number and almost instantly retrieve wages and work hours, a service that many states say has become difficult to replace.
As the new federal law takes effect, states will be required to conduct these checks more often, increasing both the volume of queries and the costs. According to state records cited in the Times, per-query prices can run as high as $15 for each data match. About half the states already use Equifax’s system, often paying millions of dollars annually. Michigan is expected to spend at least $12.8 million this year, while Virginia’s contract approaches $24 million.
Equifax executives have openly described the policy changes as a business opportunity. Begor told investors that the law created a “massive” opening for the company as states scramble to comply with new verification rules. In an October earnings call, he described the changes to Medicaid and food assistance as “a big positive” for Equifax and said, “We’re pretty bullish around government going forward.”
Those statements have alarmed lawmakers and public officials who say states have little bargaining power when negotiating with Equifax. In North Carolina, the company imposed a 24 percent price increase on the state’s Medicaid program in 2022, followed by another 36 percent hike in 2024. The state’s total spending on the contract nearly doubled from $11.6 million in 2022 to $22.5 million this year.
“We have very little leverage and recourse to back out,” North Carolina Medicaid director Jay Ludlam told the Times. “The costs exploded really fast to us, and it seemed unwarranted.”
Other states report similar experiences. South Dakota’s spending on Equifax services rose nearly 400 percent, from about $244,000 in 2022 to $1.2 million this year, according to data the state provided to the Times. The state is now exploring “all possible technology solutions” to manage the additional income checks required under the new law, said Tracy Mercer-O’Daniel, a spokeswoman for the South Dakota Department for Social Services.
Even federal agencies have struggled to absorb Equifax’s rising fees. In 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services signed a $1.2 billion multiyear contract with Equifax to verify incomes for people enrolled in Medicaid and health plans through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Under that agreement, the government’s query price is expected to double from about $5 in the early 2020s to about $10 by 2028. Usage exceeded expectations, forcing CMS to require states to cover a quarter of the costs.
“It became a budget crisis, where C.M.S. operationally could not continue to cover the full costs,” said Luke Farrell, a former U.S. Digital Service employee who supported state Medicaid programs under the Biden administration.
The senators’ letter links these pricing practices to Equifax’s market dominance. They argue that the new work requirements will allow the company to consolidate power further by locking states into “extractive contracts” and squeezing out competitors. “Equifax’s long history of anti-competitive behavior,” they wrote, “raises serious concerns about the company’s potential moves to price gouge states and taxpayers.”
Equifax’s grip on income verification has drawn scrutiny from antitrust regulators in the past. From 2008 to 2018, the Federal Trade Commission restricted the company from acquiring competitors over concerns about stifled competition. After the order expired in 2019, Equifax resumed acquisitions and expanded its data partnerships, including a 2024 deal with Workday, a payroll provider serving more than 10,000 companies. Today, the Work Number accounts for roughly a third of Equifax’s revenue and is viewed by Wall Street analysts as the company’s “crown jewel.”
Company executives dispute claims that the market lacks competition. Joe Muchnick, the Equifax executive who oversees the Work Number, told the Times, “We operate in a highly competitive space,” adding that states could always review pay stubs or government records themselves. Even so, he acknowledged that many agencies sign contracts with Equifax because it delivers data quickly.
Critics counter that public records often lag by months and fail to meet the new law’s requirements. Farrell said, “They own a product that has become a core piece of the safety net. I’ve never seen another vendor do such price hikes across public benefits.”
The policy at the center of the controversy has a track record that alarms healthcare advocates. The senators noted that work requirements have repeatedly failed to increase employment while increasing administrative burdens. In Arkansas, a Medicaid work requirement implemented in 2018 led to 18,000 low-income people losing coverage in under a year, with those lacking internet access or qualifying for exemptions among the most affected.
“Now, President Trump and Republicans in Congress have expanded this policy in a move that will ensure more Americans get tangled up in red tape and lose essential healthcare coverage and food assistance as a result,” Warren, Wyden, and Sanders wrote. “That these requirements could allow Equifax to profiteer off of this ‘solution’ [makes] them even more egregious.”
Adam Gaffney, former president of Physicians for a National Health Program, summarized the stakes more bluntly. “Corporate consultants and vendors are getting to make a killing off of Medicaid work requirements’ administration machinery while our patients will lose healthcare and suffer. Meanwhile taxpayers will fund the bureaucratic lard.”
In their letter, the senators demanded that Equifax disclose its per-query costs for state contracts, the number of work-requirement-related bids it expects to pursue in 2026 and 2027, its lobbying expenditures over the past five years, and whether it plans to continue including a contract clause giving it the “categorical right” to change prices with 30 days’ notice.
As states prepare for the rollout of the new requirements, the lawmakers say those answers are critical to understanding whether federal policy is entrenching private corporate power at the expense of public health and basic economic security.
“Equifax’s long history of anti-competitive behavior,” the senators said, “raises serious concerns about the company’s potential moves to price gouge states and taxpayers.”
COMMENTS