David Stumbo, a solicitor running for South Carolina attorney general, said Wednesday he would push for legislation to expand the office’s authority to investigate Medicaid fraud.
Stumbo, who faces Sen. Stephen Goldfinch and Solicitor David Pascoe in the June 9 Republican primary, said at a Statehouse news conference that South Carolina should strengthen oversight before becoming “the next national scandal when it comes to abuse of Medicaid dollars.”
South Carolina was part of a national investigation that led last year to charges against 11 people accused of defrauding taxpayer-funded health care programs in the state by more than $23 million.
The attorney general’s office already has two Medicaid fraud units, one for recipients and one for providers. The recipient unit has five investigators and two attorneys and works with the state Department of Health and Human Services, according to agency spokesman Robert Kittle. Kittle said the office recovered more than $535,000 in improper payments in 2025 and had 254 investigations pending at year’s end.
He backed a bill the Senate passed unanimously April 15 that would have expanded the office’s power to request information and increased penalties based on the amount improperly received. The House did not take up the bill before the session ended. Sen. Billy Garrett, the bill’s sponsor and a Stumbo supporter, said he plans to reintroduce it for the 2027 session.
Stumbo also cited LexisNexis data he said suggested thousands of ineligible people may have received Medicaid benefits. But the state Medicaid agency said that conclusion overstated the problem.
LexisNexis reported that 9,316 people in a Medicaid program for older adults or people with disabilities appeared to have assets above eligibility limits. Stumbo estimated that meant at least $147 million was improperly paid.
“This is not accurate,” Medicaid agency Director Eunice Medina wrote in a June letter to Garrett. Agency spokeswoman Jackson Wilkens Burnaugh said most flagged applicants were denied, about 1,700 were later found eligible, and nearly 600 were removed from the rolls. Medina said LexisNexis did not know whether cases were new applications or periodic reviews, or whether applicants filed individually or as couples.