Rounds, Colleagues Urge VA to Honor Veterans’ Emergency Care Claims

Rounds, Colleagues Urge VA to Honor Veterans’ Emergency Care Claims

Senators Urge VA to Reimburse Veterans for Their Emergency Treatment Claims Before Recent Court Decision

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, along with 11 of his Senate colleagues, today sent a letter to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary David Shulkin to request that the VA reimburse veterans who were billed for emergency treatment at private hospitals.

In January, the VA announced that it would not retroactively reimburse veterans for their emergency treatment despite a court decision that ruled the VA is responsible for emergency medical costs at private, non-VA hospitals. In response, the Senators wrote to VA Secretary David Shulkin urging him to reimburse veterans who filed a claim for emergency medical costs before the court ruling.

“Between 2010 and April 16, 2016, the VA erroneously denied thousands of veterans’ claims for emergency treatment,” the senators wrote. “With the VA’s recent interpretation of this ruling, veterans who filed claims before April 16, 2016, would see no relief from the VA’s wrongful application of the law and would be stuck paying medical bills that Congress intended that the VA pay. We ask that the VA include those veterans whose claims were decided before April 16, 2016, so that all veterans can fully take advantage of a benefit Congress intended they receive.”

The Expansion of Veteran Eligibility for Reimbursement Act, enacted in 2010, directed the VA to pay for veterans’ emergency treatment at non-VA facilities unless the veteran has another form of insurance that entirely covers their medical costs. Since 2010, the VA has denied thousands of claims because a veteran’s other insurance partially paid for their treatment, leaving veterans to cover the difference for costly emergency care.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ruled on April 16, 2016, that the VA’s interpretation of its responsibility for non-VA emergency treatment was wrong and ordered the VA to begin paying these claims. Despite that, the VA has chosen not to pay veterans who filed before the 2016 court ruling.

The VA released its new policy regarding payment or reimbursement for emergency treatment at private hospitals on January 9, 2018. The VA will only pay for new claims or those not decided prior to April 16, 2016.

Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also signed the letter to Secretary Shulkin.

The senators’ letter to Secretary Shulkin can be read online HERE.

###

Noem Commits to National Guard Readiness Center Construction

Noem Commits to National Guard Readiness Center Construction

RAPID CITY, S.D. – Kristi Noem today applauded the state legislature’s passage of HB1043, which would authorize the construction of a National Guard Readiness Center at the Rapid City Regional Airport, and committed to the center’s construction, if elected governor.

“South Dakota has a proud history of service in the National Guard,” said Noem. “Whether responding to devastating natural disasters at home or fighting terrorism abroad, the South Dakota National Guard has answered the call. It is our fundamental responsibility, then, to make certain they have the skills, training and tools necessary to remain safe while accomplishing the mission. I have the deepest respect and gratitude for those who have volunteered as Guardsmen and women, and if elected governor, will remain committed to completing the National Guard Readiness Center in Rapid City.”

Located near the Rapid City Regional Airport, the new Army National Guard Readiness Center would provide an additional 48,000 square feet of space for soldiers.

# # #

Release – Tapio: Non-Meandered Waters Bill a ‘Lose-Lose’ for Sportsmen and Land Owners

Tapio: Non-Meandered Waters Bill a ‘Lose-Lose’ for Sportsmen and Land Owners

South Dakota Congressional Candidate and Watertown State Senator, Neal Tapio Monday expressed disappointment regarding SB 199, a bill meant to end a long simmering state feud over the balance between private land owners and sportsmen who believe in public access to bodies of water for angling and recreational use on private land.  Tapio and 18 other senators voted to kill the bill in floor consideration Monday by a vote of 19-16.

Tapio blames authors of the bill for including several fatal flaws and unreasonable provisions in the bill’s language that he says made it impossible to reach a compromise, including one major sticking point which could have made it illegal for private landowners to hunt and fish on their own property.

“After more than a year of conversation, a special session and a 15-person committee to address this issue, it is an understatement to say this final attempt at legislation was a disappointment and a failure,” Tapio said.

“I think it’s unfair to South Dakota sportsmen who were misled into believing this was a reasonable attempt to open as many waters to fishing as possible,” Tapio said.

Senator Tapio believes fatal flaws doomed the legislation by attempting to expand the discussion to all non-meandered bodies of water and by demanding a process to close access to both the sporting public and private owners known as the “closed to one, closed to all provision.”

“This bill literally could have made it possible for one landowner to close down access to an entire non-meandered lake, making it impossible for adjoining landowners to use that lake for fishing or hunting, even on their own land”  Tapio said.

“Think about that.  You have water on your property and you want to take your grandchild hunting.  For some reason another landowner requests the lake to be closed and so it is closed to all recreation, both public and private, thereby preventing you from hunting ducks with your grandson on your own land,” Tapio said.

“A group of seasoned Republican legislators met secretly for months, but failed to respect the very basic rights of private property ownership while leading the sportsmen to believe this was a fair and equitable solution to a very complex problem.” Tapio said.  “Unfortunately, this bill expanded the scope of the problems by including all recreation on all non-meandered lakes, while failing to account for the simple core principles of private property rights,” Tapio said.

“Along with many other problems, it simply wasn’t fair to drag this process on any longer,” Tapio said.

South Dakota GOP comes down against House Bill 1305, asks people to call House members for a NO vote on bill.

House Bill 1305, sponsored by State Representative Drew Dennert just earned a sharp rebuke from the South Dakota Republican Party Executive Board this morning, who voted unanimously to oppose the legislation on Sunday.

Why? Partly because according to an e-mail calling for action by the South Dakota Republican Party Central Committee, the GOP noted that the “..measure was introduced without talking with stakeholders,” indicating that the sponsor of the measure took it upon themselves to introduce it without consulting the people it would affect.

SDGOP Chairman Dan Lederman also noted that Constitutional Amendment V, which would have done similar things to the primary process was rejected by South Dakota voters 55-45, and lost in all but three counties in the state.

The party also noted This measure represents an attempt to appease those who want to allow Democrats and others to pick the Republican candidates.   Winston Churchill said it best when he said “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” 

The e-mail encourages members of the Republican Central Committee to call the House lobby at 773-3851 to encourage their State Representatives to vote NO on the bill when it’s up for a vote today on the House Floor.

The e-mail closes by also noting that the Republican State Party Executive Board will also be weighing in on House Bill 1259.

SDSU Student Association President to oppose second Free Speech Measure, (SB198) but didn’t bother to ask students

I’m getting reports early this AM that South Dakota State Student President Taylin Albrecht decided by herself without consulting the Student’s Association to take a stand against the second free speech bill (this one originating in the State Senate) on behalf of SDSU.

Two Student Senators expressed to me their concern noting:

“Our president said that she is a representative of the students’ voice, and therefore, does not need the consent of the (senate) body to act. We have been discussing the issue amongst our senate members who are present in Pierre. Many of us were blindsided by her actions and the stance taken by the Student Federation.

We admire the universities that chose to abstain from the votes tonight in an effort to remain transparent and honest for their students.”

When Senate Bill 198 is heard Senate Education committee, if the SDSU Student Association president offers her opinion, senators should ask her when the vote was held to oppose it. Because it certainly sounds like that’s a vote she does not feel ever needs to take place.

College Fix covers story on Campus free speech bill noting “lawmakers fed misleading info before rejecting”

From the College Fix comes a recap on the story on the demise of the first Campus Free Speech Bill, noting that legislators were fed misinformation before they voted against it:

Now a cohort of student government members from South Dakota State has alleged that the student testimony was “misleading.” Six South Dakota State student senate members claim the student resolution against the free speech bill was passed hastily, disregarding typical procedures and without sufficient campus input.

“The testimony and the resolution are in many ways misleading, and untrue because nearly no student organizations or students were consulted on this issue,” the senators stated in a letter, a copy of which was posted on the political website South Dakota War College.

and…

Ryan Sailors, another student senator who signed the letter, echoed similar sentiments.

“I personally would have liked to see the resolution being tabled and give us more time to meet with the student body and get more educated on the legislation,” he told The Fix via email.

In addition to the senators who have spoken out, the editorial board of the campus newspaper, The Collegian, also criticized how the resolution was handled. In an editorial published last week, the newspaper said a vote on the resolution should have been postponed.

Read it here.

They’ll get a chance to set things right via the Senate version of the measure, which is soon to be heard in Senate Education committee.