Noem Leads Lawmakers in Introducing
Comprehensive IHS Reform Bill

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) – along with Reps. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Brad Ashford (D-NE), Adrian Smith (R-NE), and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) – today introduced the Helping Ensure Accountability, Leadership, and Transparency in Tribal Healthcare Act (HEALTTH Act), which offers comprehensive reforms to the crisis-stricken Indian Health Service (IHS).

“The government is required by treaty to provide healthcare to tribal communities. IHS has failed to uphold that duty,” said Rep. Kristi Noem.  “The problems are pervasive, but this legislation is comprehensive.  From care delivery to hospital administration, the bill aims to dramatically improve the quality of healthcare while making the system more efficient, cost-effective, and accountable.”

“We cannot sit idly by and watch an entire healthcare system remain, at best, inadequate—or worse harm persons and communities,” said Rep. Jeff Fortenberry. “This bill is another important step in addressing the health care needs of tribal members in Nebraska and throughout the nation.”

“Access to quality health facilities is an important factor in the growth of tribal communities in Nebraska and across the country. We have an obligation to improve care for Native Americans, and we cannot, in good conscious, stand by and do nothing. I am proud to cosponsor legislation that will support Nebraska tribal communities by investing in healthcare,” said Rep. Brad Ashford.

“While neighboring practitioners and hospitals are happy to assist when IHS facilities are unable to provide care, it also places serious strains on small, rural providers,” said Rep. Adrian Smith. “This legislation is an important first step in ensuring tribal communities can access the care they deserve while providing predictability for nearby rural communities.”

“No matter where you live, everyone deserves access to quality healthcare,” said Rep. Kevin Cramer. “The HEALTTH Act will make meaningful reforms at the Indian Health Service in order to support a better quality of life on our Indian reservations.”

The HEALTTH Act offers critical structural changes to how IHS operates, addressing both medical and administrative challenges.  More specifically, Noem’s legislation:

+ Improves IHS’s ability to secure long-term contracts for hospitals in emergency conditions by allowing for a partnership among IHS, tribal communities and healthcare stakeholders to collaborate throughout the contract negotiating process, rather than leaving those decisions solely to IHS.

+ Addresses the current recruitment problem – for both medical staff and hospital leadership – by putting provisions in place to:

• Allow for faster hiring.
• Make the existing student loan repayment program tax free, as an added incentive for high-quality employees.
• Provide incentives to attract competent and well-trained hospital administrators as well as medical staff.

+ Reforms the Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) Program by, among other things:

• Requiring IHS to develop a new formula for allocating PRC dollars. Under Noem’s bill, IHS would be required to develop a formula based on need, population size, and health status to ensure those areas that have the greatest need receive a greater portion of the funding.
• Requiring IHS to negotiate Medicare-like rates for services it pays for with private providers.  IHS currently pays a premium for PRC services.  Noem’s proposal would bring payments in line with what Medicare pays to stretch every dollar further.
• Requiring IHS to address the backlog of PRC payments to private providers.  Private hospitals in the Great Plains Area have long expressed concern because IHS has failed to pay their bills.  Noem would require IHS to put a strategy in place to get these hospitals paid what they are due.

+ Restores accountability through strategies, such as:

• Require IHS to be accountable for providing timely care.
• Require the Government Accountability Office to report on the financial stability of IHS hospitals that are threatened with sanction from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

A section-by-section summary of the legislation can be found here or you can access the full text here.

###

A detailing of Democrats’ affirmative action delegate requirements. From the Argus:

Soon after the state’s Democratic presidential primary ballots were counted last night the South Dakota Democratic Party sent out a list of 14 of the delegates who will vote at the national party’s convention in Cleveland.

and…

And the process of selecting them isn’t simple. Affirmative action goals dictate that the group must be gender balanced, include eight people under the age of 35, at least two Native Americans, three LGBT people, three people with disabilities and at least one African American, one Hispanic and one Asian American.

Read it here.

In South Dakota, they should be more concerned with people who show up.

June 7^th Primary Election Turnout Numbers Statewide and County

Pierre, SD – Yesterday’s June 7^th primary had a total statewide turnout of 21.93%. The Republican primary had a total turnout of 27.2% and the Democrat Primary saw a turnout of 17.5% from Democrat and Independent voters.

Total Turnout for each County is listed below:

County	Ballots Cast	Voters	Percent Turnout
Aurora	504	1924	26.20%
Beadle	1623	10965	14.80%
Bennett	437	2040	21.42%
Bon Homme	985	4064	24.24%
Brookings (Vote Center)	3619	20054	18.05%
Brown (Vote Center)	4841	24992	19.37%
Brule	865	4074	21.23%
Buffalo	234	1082	21.63%
Butte	2134	7314	29.18%
Campbell	566	1229	46.05%
Charles Mix	1201	5831	20.60%
Clark	513	2685	19.11%
Clay	1910	9970	19.16%
Codington	3859	17827	21.65%
Corson	461	2545	18.11%
Custer	2165	8135	26.61%
Davison	2254	12278	18.36%
Day	917	4275	21.45%
Deuel	539	3021	17.84%
Dewey	790	3468	22.78%
Douglas	537	2241	23.96%
Edmunds	1007	2994	33.63%
Fall River	2010	6191	32.47%
Faulk	509	1629	31.25%
Grant	2617	6357	41.17%
Gregory	791	2933	26.97%
Haakon	620	1409	44.00%
Hamlin	1217	4001	30.42%
Hand	815	2592	31.44%
Hanson	627	3786	16.56%
Harding	469	1015	46.21%
Hughes (Vote Center)	3984	13619	29.25%
Hutchinson	1332	5003	26.62%
Hyde (Vote Center)	202	1019	19.82%
Jackson	356	1900	18.74%
Jerauld	319	1334	23.91%
Jones	293	718	40.81%
Kingsbury	1093	3618	30.21%
Lake	2004	10049	19.94%
Lawrence	4534	18219	24.89%
Lincoln	5640	35246	16.00%
Lyman	901	2511	35.88%
Marshall	737	2992	24.63%
McCook	907	3966	22.87%
McPherson	767	1932	39.70%
Meade	4859	20731	23.44%
Mellette	233	1222	19.07%
Miner	358	1653	21.66%
Minnehaha	20472	122536	16.71%
Moody	800	4349	18.40%
Oglala Lakota	1120	10231	10.95%
Pennington	20775	84184	24.68%
Perkins	813	2285	35.58%
Potter (Vote Center)	978	1895	51.61%
Roberts	1189	6909	17.21%
Sanborn	287	1630	17.61%
Spink	955	4441	21.50%
Stanley	749	2371	31.59%
Sully (Vote Center)	301	1128	26.68%
Todd	1167	6337	18.42%
Tripp	893	3991	22.38%
Turner	997	5854	17.03%
Union	1704	12088	14.10%
Walworth	1380	4026	34.28%
Yankton (Vote Center)	2353	14550	16.17%
Ziebach	363	1671	21.72%

#30#

Potential Recount in Legislative Districts 16 and 30

The only possible recounts from last night’s June 7^th primary are from Legislative Districts 16 and 30. No other candidate can request a recount.

The official state canvass is set to be held on Tuesday, June 14th at 9:00am Central Standard Time at the State Capitol in room 414.

According to South Dakota Codified Law 12-21-11 if any legislative district comprises more than one county, any candidate for election to or nomination for the Legislature who, according to the official returns, has been defeated by a margin not exceeding two percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for such office may, within three days after completion of the official canvass of the returns, file a petition as set forth in § 12-21-10 with the county auditor of each county. Each county auditor shall then conduct a recount.

In the District 16 (Lincoln and Union Counties) election for State Representative the three candidates are:

Name	Votes	Percentage
David L. Anderson	1,166	40.50
Kevin D. Jensen	874	30.36
William “Bill” Shorma	839	29.14

In the District 30 (Custer, Fall River and Pennington Counties) election for State Representative the 5 candidates are:

Name	Votes	Percentage
Tim R. Goodwin	1,508	22.01
Julie Frye-Mueller	1,460	21.31
Richard Mounce	1,445	21.09
Travis Lasseter	1,230	17.96
Marilyn J. Oakes	1,207	17.62

South Dakota Codified Law pertaining to legislative recounts.

SDCL 12-21-11.   Complete recount on candidate’s petition in close election in joint legislative district.  If any legislative district comprises more than one county, any candidate for election to or nomination for the Legislature who, according to the official returns, has been defeated by a margin not exceeding two percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for such office may, within three days after completion of the official canvass of the returns, file a petition as set forth in § 12-21-10 with the county auditor of each county. Each county auditor shall then conduct a recount.

12-21-11.1.   Notice to secretary of state of petition filed with county auditor. Whenever a petition for recount is filed with the county auditor for an election which has been canvassed by the State Board of Canvassers, the county auditor shall notify the secretary of state of the petition for recount.

12-21-2.   Composition and appointment of county recount board–Oath to act in good faith and with impartiality. The county recount board of each county which conducts a recount authorized by this chapter shall consist of a recount referee and two voters of the county to be appointed by the presiding judge of the circuit court for that county, and shall provide for representation of the two political parties with the largest party registration in that county. The recount referee shall be a duly qualified member of the bar of the State of South Dakota and a member of the political party which polled the largest number of votes for Governor in the county in the last gubernatorial election. Prior to serving, each member of the recount board shall take an oath that the member will act in good faith and with impartiality. The state board of elections shall prescribe the oath to be taken.

12-21-20.   Notice to circuit judge of recount petition–Appointment and convening of recount board. The county auditor, immediately on the due filing of any petition for a recount or upon receipt from the secretary of state of notice of such filing with the secretary of state, shall notify in writing, with the seal of the auditor’s office, the presiding judge of the circuit court for the auditor’s county. The presiding judge shall appoint a board, pursuant to § 12-21-2, for each county in the circuit in which a recount is to be conducted. The presiding judge may appoint the board anytime within thirty days prior to a primary or general election or upon the filing of the petition for recount. The board shall then convene in the office of the county auditor on the second Monday at nine a.m. following the filing of the petition. However, if the second Monday is a legal holiday, the board shall convene at nine a.m. of the day following. The county auditor shall provide the recount board with laws, rules, and forms to use in conducting the recount. The board shall then proceed with the recount.

12-21-39.   Reconvening of state canvassers after recount–Recanvass and corrected abstract. The secretary of state shall file all certificates involved in the recount as to any office, nomination, position, or question that have been received from the county recount boards. The secretary of state shall fix a time and place as early as reasonably possible for reconvening the State Board of Canvassers and shall notify the members of the State Board of Canvassers. The State Board of Canvassers shall reconvene at the time and place so designated and recanvass the official returns as to the office, nomination, or position, as corrected by the certificates. The State Board of Canvassers shall make a new and corrected abstract of the votes cast and declare the person elected or nominated as the case may be or the determination of any question. The corrected abstract shall be signed by the members of the State Board of Canvassers in their official capacities and shall have the great seal of the state affixed. The corrected abstract shall be filed by the secretary of state.

#30#

State of South Dakota to Join State Attorneys General Challenge to Federal Bathroom and Locker Room Mandate

PIERRE, S.D.- Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that South Dakota will join other State Attorneys General in challenge to President Obama’s letter directive to school districts threatening both civil rights litigation and the withholding of educational funds to the States.

“As Attorney General it was and remains my hope that our country and state can find a solution to the transgender concerns without forcing children of the opposite sex into the same bathrooms and locker rooms. The President’s attempt to require children of opposite sex to share locker rooms and bathrooms under the threat of lawsuit and withholding of education funding is a one size fits all solution that goes beyond his constitutional authority. It is my contention that federal law cannot direct local school districts on who can use locker rooms and bathrooms. These issues need to be handled as they have been for a long time- on the state and local level,” said Jackley.

In 1964, Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, making it illegal for employers to invidiously discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-2. Eight years later, Congress passed Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…” 20 U.S.C. § 1681. Title IX regulations issued by the Department of Education likewise expressly allow recipients of federal funding to “provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex,” provided that the facilities provided for “students of one sex” are “comparable” to the facilities provided for “students of the other sex.” The term “gender identity: does not appear in the text or regulators of Title IX.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Education (DOE) contend that Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of “sex” extends to discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.” Jackley contends that the DOJ and DOE lack any authority to issue such direction. It is the duty of Congress to legislate and the duty of the Executive Branch, including DOJ and DOE, to administer and enforce the laws that Congress enacts. Through this joint letter, DOJ and DOE have unilaterally attempted to change the clear meaning of law passed by Congress and impose new obligations on covered entities.

A case was filed May 25, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Several Attorneys General anticipate filing an additional challenge to the President’s authority to issue the letter.   This filing may be separate from the Texas case or filed in a different district court.

Senate Passes Thune Bill That Would Improve Access to Rural Health Care

“Closing the gap between the health care our rural communities are receiving and the care they deserve has been a priority of mine, and having this bill signed into law would mean that gap gets even smaller.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, applauded the Senate’s passage of his Rural Health Care Connectivity Act of 2015, which was included in the Toxic Substances Control Act conference report. Thune’s bipartisan bill, which was introduced early last year, would amend the Communications Act to permit public and nonprofit skilled nursing facilities (SNF) to apply for support from the Universal Service Fund’s (USF) Rural Health Care Program (RHCP). The USF’s RHCP provides funding for telecommunications and broadband services used to provide health care in rural communities. The Communications Act specifies which types of health care providers are eligible to receive RHCP support, and SNFs are currently not included.

The Commerce Committee passed the Rural Health Care Connectivity Act in November 2015, and last night the full Senate approved the conference report by voice vote. The conference report now heads to the president, who is expected to sign it.

“Closing the gap between the health care our rural communities are receiving and the care they deserve has been a priority of mine, and having this bill signed into law would mean that gap gets even smaller,” said Thune. “We should be doing all we can to make it easier for health care professionals to connect with rural patients and provide greater support and improved services to those who need them the most. This bill would put these professionals, like those who work for skilled nursing facilities around the country, in a much better position to do so.”

When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) updated the RHCP and created the Healthcare Connect Fund in 2012, it proposed implementing a pilot program to examine funding SNFs. In January 2014, the FCC deferred implementation of the pilot program, claiming it needed additional statutory authority to allow SNFs to be eligible.

The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society (Good Sam), headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, currently operates hundreds of SNFs nationwide, most of which are in rural communities. Through Internet-based connections to its national headquarters, Good Sam allows rural patients to remotely connect with hospitals and physicians. The Rural Health Care Connectivity Act would help organizations like Good Sam provide better-quality care for rural areas throughout the country.

“We commend Senator Thune and the support of other congressional leaders for the long-awaited passage of the Rural Health Care Connectivity Act of 2015,” said David J. Horazdovsky, president and CEO of Good Sam. “Enactment of this bill will offer much-needed assistance to residents of Good Samaritan and other skilled nursing care centers in a variety of locations in South Dakota and in other rural areas of the country.”

###

Always glad to see that as much as things change, there are always some things that stay the same.

Some people are sore losers. Some are sore winners. And some are just sore.

A friend pointed out to me this AM that out of 6 incumbent senators up for election last night, there was only one incumbent Senator – Bruce Rampelberg – who was fired from being a State Senator last night.

And as I’ve noted before, he was a supporter of a corporate income tax, & legalizing pot to a degree. Otherwise, that was it.  In D7, Tidemann returns, D9 Deb Peters returns, D32 Alan Solano returns, D33 Phil Jensen returns, and D35 Terri Haverly returns.

That doesn’t translate to a lot of people looking for drastic change in the status quo.

Arguably, you might have been able to call the 2016 GOP Senate Primary races last month with the exception of Sly/Jensen. The House primary races? That’s a horse of a different color, as results seems to have come out all over the place.

While they largely leaned towards the familiar, they weren’t afraid to try something new if the candidate showed that they were willing to go out after it.

District 3 –  Dennert & Kaiser over Kolden.
District 11 – Karr & Willadsen over Landry.
District 14 – Holmes and Zikmund over Zimbeck
District 16 – Jensen and Anderson over Shorma
District 19 – Schoenfish and Peterson over Osborn
District 23 – Lake and Gosch over Werner & Hoffman
District 25 – Hunt and Pischke over Ecklund
District 28B – Marty over Wagner
District 30 – Frye-Mueller & Goodwin over Oakes, Mounce and Lasseter
District 31 – Johns & Turbiville over Weyrich
District 32 – Conzet and McPherson over Ericks
District 33 – David Johnson and Howard over Buckingham

If anyone has any thoughts on a universal explanation as to why the house races went as they did aside from the efforts the candidates put into it, I’m open to discussion. I don’t think there’s any unifying theme other than going out and doing the hard work.