House approves bill giving lawmakers access to redacted DHS fraud report despite transparency objections

The Minnesota House on March 9 approved House File 33‑78, a measure to give lawmakers access to portions of a Department of Human Services (DHS) contract report that the administration had largely redacted under Minnesota statute chapter 13.37.

Representative Schumacher, the bill’s author, told colleagues the contract with Optum produced a December report that was “nearly all redacted” and said legislators need access to assess prepayment and fraud vulnerabilities and propose policy fixes. She said the intent is to enable lawmakers to “be partners” in preventing fraud while protecting genuinely sensitive information.

Representative Mueller said an amendment at the desk would have made reviewers subject to data‑practices penalties (both civil and criminal) like executive‑branch employees, but she withdrew that amendment after explaining the rationale for protections. "We really want to make sure that that information also doesn't get disclosed by anybody who is reviewing the reports," she said before withdrawing the amendment.

Opponents framed the bill as a threat to public transparency. Representative Roach said the public — not just a subset of lawmakers — has a right to see taxpayer‑funded reports and called the bill “ridiculous,” arguing it would prevent elected officials from speaking about information they gather. "This is a taxpayer‑funded report that the taxpayers should be able to see," Roach said.

Supporters, including Representative Niska, called the lack of access to the full report an obstacle to accountability. "If we're serious about fighting fraud, lawmakers need the truth," Niska said, adding that the report had been used internally by the administration to shape proposals but not shared fully with legislators.

The clerk called the roll; the bill passed on a roll call, 107 ayes to 27 nays. The title was agreed to and the measure advances as passed by the House.

Context and next steps: The question at the center of debate was how to balance lawmakers’ oversight needs with concerns about revealing details that could create a “road map” for bad actors. Sponsors said the bill was narrowly tailored to allow committee chairs and staff to review redacted material necessary for legislative work; critics said the public’s right to know remained inadequately protected. The House-approved bill will proceed through the legislative process toward potential final disposition in subsequent steps.