SD seeks Medicaid work rules in spite of similar moves by Congress
U.S. House Republicans are debating cutbacks to Medicaid, the health care program for lower-income Americans and some people with disabilities. (Photo by)
Despite Republican U.S. Congress members' intentions to set Medicaid work requirements at a federal level, South Dakota officials plan to ask President Donald Trump to approve their own set of Medicaid work requirements.
Medicaid is government-funded health insurance for people with low incomes, and for adults and children with disabilities. South Dakotans voted in 2022 to expand Medicaid to adults with incomes below 138% of the poverty level, a decision that allowed the state to capitalize on a 90% federal funding match. In 2024, voters passed another constitutional amendment to let the state to seek approval from the federal government to impose Medicaid work requirements.
The state's waiver proposal seeking approval for a Medicaid work requirement had been drafted by the time Congress began to debate work requirements at the federal level this year.
Two public hearings will be held during the public comment period:
10:30 a.m. May 30 at the DSS office in Pierre.
11 a.m. June 12 at the DSS OneStop office in Sioux Falls.
Written comments can be emailed to MedicaidSPA@state.sd.us with the subject line 'SDCareerLink Public Comment,' or mailed to the Division of Medical Services in Pierre.
Individuals working, earning an income and gaining 'independence and self-sufficiency' experience 'greater health and economic well-being,' the proposal states.
Ben Hanson, North and South Dakota government relations director for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said barriers to accessible and affordable health care hurt South Dakotans in the long run. He worries work requirements at the state or federal level will burden employees and small business owners with paperwork. A majority of Medicaid recipients already work or are exempted from work, he said.
Given South Dakota's tight budget outlook, he worries lawmakers won't pay to properly staff and oversee a work requirement program. Too little staff and too much paperwork, could keepSouth Dakotans from seeking needed care, he said, which could lead to more costly expenses if a medical condition goes untreated.
'It seems like it's set up for non-success,' Hanson said.
The state will take public comment on its proposal through June 18.
At the federal level, proposed Medicaid work requirements would mandate those between 19 and 65 who rely on the state-federal health program to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program for at least 80 hours each month.
South Dakota's state-level work rules, as proposed, wouldn't require employed Medicaid recipients to work or be in school for a set number of hours. The state would review compliance on an annual basis, at the time of Medicaid renewal.
The federal government also has more exceptions to its proposed changes than the state.
South Dakota would allow exceptions for people who are:
Pregnant or postpartum,
Disabled, as determined by the Social Security Administration,
Have a cancer or other serious or terminal medical condition verified by a physician,
In an intensive behavioral health treatment program, hospitalized or living in a nursing home facility,
In an area with at least unemployment 20% higher than the national average and are exempt from SNAP requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents.
People who would meet the state's requirements are:
Employed
Enrolled in job training or school
Caretakers for a dependent child in their home
Caretakers for an elderly or disabled person in their home
People who already meet work requirements for other federal programs like SNAP or unemployment insurance.
The federal program would also exempt tribal community members, those in the foster care system, people who were in foster care who are younger than 26, individuals released from incarceration in the last 90 days, among others, from work requirements.
During Trump's first administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved 13 state work requirement waivers. Arkansas' program was the first to implement its program in 2018, but that state was stopped by a federal court after nine months. About 18,000 people lost coverage in Arkansas. Employment levels did not increase.
The Biden administration rescinded all work requirement approvals, but Georgia started its own work requirement program in July 2023 without federal support.
Per South Dakota Department of Social Services' estimate, 80% of the people who got coverage under Medicaid expansion already work or wouldn't have to under its proposed work requirement.
South Dakota's Medicaid expansion population as of April 2025 stood at 30,542. Covering the expansion population will cost about $364.5 million this year.
A work requirement program would reduce enrollment by 5-10% in the first year, the department said.
That would save the Medicaid program between $48.9 million and $71 million in the first year, the department claims. In the following years, the department expects enrollment to stay flat if work requirements are implemented rather than grow at a previously anticipated 2% each year.
South Dakota voters will decide next year whether to continue requiring Medicaid expansion if federal support for the program declines. The ballot question will ask voters to authorize the termination of Medicaid expansion if federal support falls below 90%.
In addition to setting work requirements at a federal level, Republicans pushed a Medicaid overhaul through the House in a budget reconciliation package this week. The changes reduce the program by $625 million over 10 years under the latest estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
16 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Xi Bets Trump Detente Will Lead to Future Wins on Chips, Tariffs
In the early hours of Wednesday, Donald Trump declared that Xi Jinping was 'VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!' Some 36 hours later, the US leader said he got what he wanted: A commitment to restore the flow of rare earth magnets. It's less clear what Xi got in return, apart from putting a lid on further punitive US measures. One of the few clear takeaways appeared to be an assurance for the US to welcome Chinese students, a major issue in China but also not one that would explain why Xi got on the phone after making Trump wait for months.

USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. | Opinion The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that way of thinking? Show Caption Hide Caption Trump rescinds Biden-era emergency abortion care guidance The Trump administration rescinded guidance clarifying that hospitals in abortion-ban states must treat pregnant patients during medical emergencies. unbranded - Newsworthy Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? Having a baby in America is dangerous. Republicans aren't helping. The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. None of this is surprising from Republicans. It's just sad. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno


USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts.
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. Show Caption Hide Caption Disabled protesters removed from House committee hearing Disabled demonstrators protesting a Republican proposal to cut benefits were forced to leave a House committee hearing and arrested. Perhaps you've heard: Republicans are about to kick millions of people off health insurance. That claim is all over the news media as Congress debates the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Advocates on the left even say the proposed changes will kill people. Such claims have no basis in reality. The point is to frighten Republican lawmakers into giving up on necessary reforms. Instead, the GOP should double down. Congressional Budget Office is biased, and often wrong The source for this fearmongering is the Congressional Budget Office. As the Foundation for Government Accountability shows in our new research, CBO staff consists largely of registered Democrats and the agency is often wrong in its projections. Washington elites and their media allies like to hold up the CBO as an all-seeing oracle. In theory, it's a nonpartisan federal agency inside Congress that accurately predicts how legislation will play out in the real world. In reality, CBO is overwhelmingly staffed by Democrats and its findings are less than trustworthy. We painstakingly analyzed the voter registration of every CBO employee. Our finding: A staggering 79% of CBO staff are Democrats. A mere 12% are Republicans. That's actually worse than senior bureaucrats at the most liberal federal agencies, including Housing and Urban Development, the State Department and Health and Human Services. And when you look at key CBO departments, the liberal bias is even more stark. The Health Analysis Division is 93% Democrat and zero Republican. That's the department now driving the news about the dangers of the Republican bill. In other words, CBO may well be the most liberal government outfit in all of Washington. And surprise, surprise: It does Democrats' bidding. Tell us: Republicans want massive cuts to Medicaid. What do you want? | Forum Opinion That fact should persuade Republicans to ignore CBO's analysis of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In May, CBO asserted that about 10 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage by 2034 if the bill passed. CBO blames Republican reforms like Medicaid work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and the removal of illegal immigrants from Medicaid. But think about what's really happening. A group of Democratic bureaucrats are criticizing Republican efforts to roll back Democratic priorities. This isn't nonpartisan policy analysis. It's political damage control. CBO projections were wrong on 'Obamacare' And wouldn't you know: The leftist CBO is frequently wrong. The agency has a long history of underestimating the benefits of Republican policies like tax cuts and health care reforms. The CBO also routinely minimizes the damage of Democratic policies, especially the soaring cost of government expansions. In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, the CBO said only 13 million able-bodied adults would be covered under the law's Medicaid expansion in all 50 states. But within a decade, 50% more able-bodied adults had jumped onto Medicaid, even though only two-thirds of states had expanded the program. Opinion: GOP must cut Medicaid now. Or risk debt crisis and devastating cuts later. CBO's error made "Obamacare" look more affordable than it is, and taxpayers have spent tens of billions of additional dollars on able-bodied adults who push vulnerable Americans and individuals with disabilities back in line. For more than a decade, CBO has been consistently wrong on Medicaid expansion's real-world impact, underestimating enrollment and the cost to taxpayers. But when CBO analyzed the Republican repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate in 2017, it overestimated how many people would lose coverage. It said 4 million people would lose private health coverage and Medicaid in the first two years alone. But by 2020, about 13 million people had gained coverage. CBO could hardly have been more wrong. And the agency is still in charge of making predictions. Now, the CBO is once again warning about massive coverage losses, and their media allies are dutifully repeating the assertion. But congressional Republicans should see through the charade. Case in point: CBO's predictions about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include 1.6 million people enrolled in Medicaid in multiple states. They won't lose coverage in the state where they live, but CBO still counts them among those losing coverage. In addition, 200,000 'losses' are people who aren't even on Medicaid. CBO just assumes they'll join in the years ahead. GOP is doing the right thing with Medicaid The truth is that Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. That will allow states to focus on Medicaid's intended recipients such as individuals with disabilities. Republicans are also removing ineligible people and illegal immigrants from Medicaid rolls. CBO makes it sound like those coverage losses are wrong, but what's really wrong is letting millions of people take advantage of taxpayers. Republicans are looking out for Americans − taxpayers, individuals with disabilities and future generations. The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, is looking out for the Democratic agenda of growing government at any cost. Republicans in the Senate should ignore the fearmongering and move forward with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as soon as possible. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability, where Addison Scherler is a data investigator.