Considering Our Options On Medicaid
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

In the past, I’ve been unwilling to support expansion of Medicaid in South Dakota. Without a plan to cover the state costs, I have opposed expansion. But I have never said “never,” and there may be a way to cover our costs completely.

Since last spring the state has been in discussions with the federal government and South Dakota tribes about the way healthcare services are provided to Native Americans. The United States Government strives to meet their treaty obligation to provide health care to Native Americans through the Indian Health Service.

Many Native Americans in South Dakota are not able to be served by IHS, however. This can be because there is no IHS facility in their area, because IHS doesn’t have specialists available, because of long wait times or because IHS funding for the fiscal year is exhausted.

No matter the reason, when a Native American who is Medicaid eligible does not seek care through IHS, but instead goes to another provider, part of the cost is shifted to the state. When South Dakota must cover these costs, it is because the federal government is not meeting its treaty obligation.

If more Native American health care expenditures could be 100% federally funded – as the treaty requires – the state could save up to $67 million per year. That would be enough to cover fully the state’s costs to expand Medicaid.

In the past, the federal government has not been receptive to fixing the cost shifting problem. Gov. Janklow tried to change it and couldn’t. Gov. Rounds sued over it and lost. But now, the federal government is willing to listen. For the first time, we have the opportunity to solve this longstanding problem.

But it is only possible if we expand Medicaid at the same time. Any change to our state Medicaid program is subject to approval by HHS and requires tribal consultation. They will not approve a change in how IHS reimburses our state unless we use the proceeds to fund expansion.

This is a very complex area and making something work will be difficult. I cannot tell you today that everything will come together. But if it does, we should seize the opportunity. Making this change would benefit Native Americans and others who would gain health coverage. It would also save funds for counties, jails and prisons, hospitals, and other Medicaid providers.

I know many South Dakotans are skeptical about expanding Medicaid, and I share some of those sentiments. It bothers me that some people who can work will become more dependent on government. It bothers me that a single adult could choose to go on Medicaid rather than work a minimum wage job to qualify for insurance on the health insurance exchange.

But we also have to remember those who would benefit, such as the single mother of three who simply cannot work enough hours to exceed the poverty line for her family.

I also want to be clear: This is not a done deal. Our talks with the federal government have been promising, but there is much work to be done. There is still the potential for this effort to fall through.

I will not support expansion unless our savings cover costs anticipated next year, and every year through State Fiscal Year 2021. I will not support expansion unless HHS and IHS do what they need to do to make it work. I will not support expansion unless our tribes agree with these changes. And I will not support expansion unless the Legislature supports it also.

This is a complicated decision and we all have to weigh the positives and negatives. In my mind, the opportunity to end this longstanding IHS reimbursement issue, to gain coverage for more South Dakotans, to improve health care for Native Americans, to save money for counties and Medicaid providers, and to potentially save millions in state dollars outweighs the negatives.  If we can make the money work, we should seize this opportunity.

-30-

In addition to the Augie CR’s going to CPAC, the USD College Republicans are heading to the “Super Bowl of Conservatism” as well:

For the last two years the University of South Dakota College Republicans have attended the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington D.C, and this year we’re asking for your help. This year’s event is March 2-5.

and..

By donating to our GoFundMe page, you will help us pay for our tickets to the event and hotel room in our nation’s capital. Any amount would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, and support in helping us advance the conservative message.

Thank you and God Bless.

Read that, and donate to the USD College Republicans here.

From the City of Brookings website:

The Brookings City Council is now accepting applications for the soon-to-be vacant City Council Member position left by Council Member Scott Meyer’s resignation. The appointment term would be from February 10, 2016 – April 30, 2016. Applicants must be a Brookings resident for a minimum of six months and registered to vote in Brookings.

Read (and apply) here.

Meyer just won the seat in April of this year, and would have been sworn in at the July meeting, so that was a brief tenure.

South Dakota Joins Further Challenge to EPA Authority Removing State Decision Making

PIERRE – Attorney General Marty Jackley announces today that South Dakota has joined 21 other bipartisan State Attorneys General in an Amicus Curiae or “friend of the Court” challenge to the EPA’s continued “interpretation” to expand its authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case is American Farm Bureau Federation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and led by the Attorneys General of Kansas, Indiana and Missouri.

“The EPA is overstepping its Congressional authority and removing the states’ decision making authority,” said Jackley. “The EPA expansive interpretation and complex regulatory requirements harm and create continued uncertainty for the agriculture community and small businesses.”

The Third Federal Circuit has deferred to the EPA’s interpretation of the words “the total maximum daily load, (TMDL)” permitting the EPA to impose complex regulatory requirements that do much more than cap daily levels of total pollutant limits and displace powers reserved to the States. The brief argues that this decision is contrary to the CWA plain language and destroys the Act’s cooperative federalism framework. The decision allows the EPA to micromanage state and local governments’ decisions regarding land use and development. The brief contends the EPA used the Chesapeake Bay TMDL to extend its authority beyond that permitted by the CWA when it purported to regulate “upstream” States even though no part of the Chesapeake Bay is located within those States.

There is no cost to join as amicus curiae other than the inclusion of some attorney consultation time in support of the multi-state briefing. The following states have joined: Kansas, Indiana, Missouri, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

-30-

Next Stop for Thune’s Bipartisan STB Reforms: President’s Desk

“By finding common ground among many different rail customers, shippers, and railroads themselves, we are reforming the STB for the first time since the board’s establishment in 1996.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and lead Senate sponsor of S. 808, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) Reauthorization Act of 2015, issued the following statement after the U.S. House of Representatives approved the bill by voice vote:

“When the ability to transport products to and from South Dakota is jeopardized, it’s the farmers, ranchers, businesses, and ultimately the consumers who pay the price,” said Thune. “This bill, which I hope is signed into law without delay, will help address the uncertainty encountered by businesses and agriculture producers who are forced to deal with the STB, and it will increase the board’s accountability. By finding common ground among many different rail customers, shippers, and railroads themselves, we are reforming the STB for the first time since the board’s establishment in 1996. This is good news for states like South Dakota that depend on freight rail as a critical tool for shipments – coming or going.”

The Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 808 by voice vote on March 25, 2015, and it cleared the Senate by unanimous consent on June 18, 2015. The bill now heads to the president for his signature.

Highlights of S. 808:

• Improves the STB’s current dispute resolution process by setting timelines for rate reviews and expanding voluntary arbitration procedures to address both rate and service disputes;
• Ensures the STB has the authority to proactively resolve problems before they escalate into larger disputes by providing the STB with the ability to initiate investigations on matters other than rate cases; and
• Improves the STB’s structure and decision making processes by expanding the board membership from three to five, and with proper disclosure, allows board members to talk with one another.

The STB is the federal regulatory body responsible for economic oversight of the nation’s freight rail system. Run by a three-member bipartisan board, the agency has regulatory jurisdiction over railroad rates, mergers, line acquisitions, new rail-line construction, line abandonment, and other rail issues. The STB was created by Congress in 1996 as the successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission. Since that time, the STB has not been reauthorized or substantively reformed.

The Senate Commerce Committee, of which Thune serves as chair, has jurisdiction over our nation’s freight and passenger railroads, and is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. In addition, Thune previously served as South Dakota State Railroad Director under former Governor George S. Mickelson from 1991-1993. At Thune’s request, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a report earlier this year that concluded the rail backlog in 2013 and 2014 lowered corn, wheat, and soybean prices in the Upper Midwest and caused shippers to pay record-high railcar premiums, 28 to 150 percent above the average previous levels for roughly 65 consecutive weeks.

Click here for a copy of S. 808 and here to see what stakeholders are saying about Thune’s bill.

###

State Representative Fred Deutsch is talking more about his legislative measure to keep boys in the Boys locker room, in the face of ridiculous federal legislation:

The bill is needed for a number of reasons that developed since April 2014, when the Obama administration issued what it identified as a “significant guidance document” and established a new interpretation of federal non-discrimination laws (Title IX) to include “gender identity.”

and…

This past month they found an Illinois school district violated Title IX anti-discrimination laws when it did not allow a transgender student who was born a boy and still maintains boy private parts, to change and shower in the girls’ locker room. The school accommodated to every student request, including use of the girls’ shower room. However, because the school required use of a privacy curtain in the shower room, the federal government entered the picture.

The administration’s Office of Civil Rights ruled that the school cannot require the use of a privacy curtain, and must give the transgender student “unrestricted access to the girls’ facilities,” or lose millions in federal funding.

This assault is going on across the country.

and…

Last, the bill treats transgender students with sensitivity. It requires schools to accommodate requests by transgender students in the most reasonable manner available, short of allowing use of the other biologic sex’s showers, locker rooms or restrooms. The goal of accommodation is to allow students to equally participate in all educational and extra-curricular opportunities.

Read it here.

What do you think? While allowing them to participate in the sports opportunities for the gender they identify with, is it a reasonable compromise to disallow those with boy parts to shower with those with girl parts, and vice-versa?

I’m not sure why my newsfeed seems to have gone haywire, but I’m working on it. It might have been the latest WordPress upgrade. Hang on!

—

Update: Yeah, I’m not sure what’s happened, as it all seems to have gone goofy after the latest wordpress update. If it remedies itself after a database update, I’ll go back to it. But in the meantime, the old newsfeed seems to be running fine for the moment, so I reactivated it.   Enjoy.

Under current South Dakota State Law, petitions for office can start to be circulated on January 1st, officially kicking off the 2016 election season (we’re all just pre-gaming at the moment).

Has anyone come to a decision as to running (or not running) for office that hasn’t been mentioned yet?

Give us a shout out under the comment section!  Tell us what you’re running for and why.

The word tonight is that Democrat State Senator Angie Buhl O’Donnell is officially entering her lame duck legislative session this next month, and will NOT be returning to the State Senate.

In her place, Democrat State Rep Patrick Kirschman is apparently telling people that he’s going to be running for the vacated seat.

For District Democrats, this would be a marked change in representation in that chamber, as during her entire tenure, Angie Buhl has been rabidly pro-choice, and Kirschman has received high marks from the pro-life community, rankied at 100% by South Dakota Right to Life for the 2013-2014 sessions at a time Buhl was ranked at 0%.

That’s all assuming a challenger doesn’t emerge.

in 2014, Kirschman was nearly taken out of contention by independent candidate Eric Leggett, who only came up short by about 150 votes in his first run for public office.

Who knows. That could be a seat way up in the air come November 2016.