Minnesota vs Texas on USAspending: $2.7B against $72.7B

A $66.07 reading on 5.8 million people

Minnesota is not a small state. 5,793,151 residents against Texas’s 31,290,831 is about 19 percent of the Texas Census count. Minnesota’s $2.7B is about 4 percent of Texas’s $72.7B. That mismatch is the $66.07 versus $686.1 intensity gap. Population does not buy Minnesota a proportional share of the obligation stock.

Minnesota still files 98,897 awards, a substantial tape on $2.7B. Texas files 530,634. Minnesota’s row share is larger than its dollar share. The Upper Midwest file is action-heavy relative to dollars and still far behind Texas on both measures.

Benefit administration versus drug manufacturing

Minnesota’s top NAICS is pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds. Texas’s top NAICS is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. One peak is an administrative health-benefits slice. The other is a manufacturing slice. They sit in the same broad health economy and in different federal buying patterns.

The packet does not give dollar shares for those peaks. It only names them on $2.7B and $72.7B. The 98,897 Minnesota awards and 530,634 Texas awards include many other industries. Use the Minnesota and Texas state hubs for agencies and recipients. Cite USAspending.gov.

FY2026: $382.8M versus $21.5B

Fiscal year 2026 obligations are $382.8M in Minnesota and $21.5B in Texas. Recency preserves Texas’s lead. Minnesota’s latest-year amount is a modest slice of $2.7B; Texas’s $21.5B is a large slice of $72.7B. Treat the year as a recency cut of obligations, not as Treasury cash.

Do not divide $382.8M or $21.5B by 98,897 or 530,634 all-years awards. Spending per capita of $66.07 and $686.1 already uses Census denominators of 5,793,151 and 31,290,831.

Health-adjacent peaks do not equal similar stocks

Readers who see pharmacy benefit management next to pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing may expect similar federal files. The stocks are $2.7B and $72.7B. The per-capita readings are $66.07 and $686.1. The labels are mix tags, not evidence that Minnesota and Texas book the same kind of health dollars at the same scale.

Keep the comparison on USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are a different series. Place-of-performance for benefit administration can sit at a processor while patients sit elsewhere. The packet does not reallocate.

Benefit administration is not drug manufacturing at Texas scale

Minnesota’s pharmacy-benefit-administration peak and Texas’s pharmaceutical-preparation peak sit in adjacent health-economy language and in different NAICS families. One is an administrative third-party mix on $2.7B. The other is a manufacturing mix on $72.7B. Treating them as the same federal health file would erase the $2.7B versus $72.7B gap, the $66.07 versus $686.1 intensity gap, and the 98,897 versus 530,634 award gap.

Minnesota’s 5,793,151 residents are a large Midwestern Census count. They do not produce a proportional share of Texas’s $72.7B. FY2026 of $382.8M versus $21.5B restates Texas’s recency lead. Cite USAspending.gov for obligations. Do not convert benefit-administration dollars into outlays to pharmacies or into cash paid per Minnesotan.

Place-of-performance for third-party administration can sit at a processor while covered lives sit in other states. The packet does not reallocate. Use the Minnesota and Texas hubs for agencies and recipients. Keep $66.07 and $686.1 labeled as Census-based packet figures on the stacked stocks of $2.7B and $72.7B.

Minnesota’s 98,897 awards on 5,793,151 residents show a real federal tape under a $66.07 reading. Texas’s 530,634 awards on 31,290,831 residents show a larger tape under $686.1. Pharmacy-benefit administration on $2.7B is not pharmaceutical-preparation manufacturing on $72.7B. FY2026 of $382.8M versus $21.5B stays a recency cut of USAspending.gov obligations.

How to read Minnesota versus Texas

Read Texas first on stacked dollars ($72.7B vs $2.7B), spending per capita ($686.1 vs $66.07), award count (530,634 vs 98,897), and FY2026 ($21.5B vs $382.8M). Read Minnesota for the pharmacy-benefit-administration peak against Texas’s pharmaceutical-preparation peak, and for a 98,897-row tape on a cool $66.07 reading.

The comparison hub holds the tables. The Minnesota and Texas hubs hold agencies and recipients. Census counts of 5,793,151 and 31,290,831 are the per-capita denominators where present. Outlays are not listed.

Minnesota’s 5,793,151 residents and Texas’s 31,290,831 residents are the only Census figures in the packet. The $66.07 versus $686.1 readings sit on $2.7B versus $72.7B. Award counts of 98,897 versus 530,634 and FY2026 of $382.8M versus $21.5B complete the comparison. Pharmacy benefit administration versus pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing remains the mix contrast. Cite USAspending.gov. Outlays are not listed.

Questions

Does Minnesota or Texas have more federal spending?

Texas leads stacked USAspending.gov obligations $72.7B to Minnesota’s $2.7B. Texas also leads spending per capita, $686.1 versus $66.07, on 31,290,831 residents against Minnesota’s 5,793,151. Award counts are 530,634 in Texas and 98,897 in Minnesota. FY2026 obligations are $21.5B in Texas and $382.8M in Minnesota.

Are Minnesota and Texas in the same federal health mix?

Minnesota’s lead industry is pharmacy benefit management and other third party administration of insurance and pension funds. Texas’s is pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing. Those are different NAICS peaks on $2.7B and $72.7B. Award counts are 98,897 versus 530,634. The figures are USAspending.gov obligations, not outlays.

Why is Minnesota’s per-capita figure so low?

The packet reports $66.07 per capita in Minnesota on 5,793,151 residents and $686.1 in Texas on 31,290,831. Stacked stocks are $2.7B versus $72.7B, a larger multiple than the population gap. Award counts are 98,897 versus 530,634. The packet lists USAspending.gov obligations only.

Are Minnesota vs Texas figures Treasury outlays?

No. The $2.7B and $72.7B totals, and FY2026 amounts of $382.8M and $21.5B, are USAspending.gov obligations. Outlays are cash payments and can lag. Spending per capita ($66.07 vs $686.1) uses Census population where present. Award counts in the packet are all-years totals, not a single fiscal year’s actions.