Federal action could make SD's Medicaid work requirements ‘an exercise in futility,' official says
South Dakota's proposal to implement work requirements for Medicaid expansion could be 'an exercise in futility' now that the federal government is also considering it, said state Department of Social Services Secretary Matt Althoff.
The state began drafting its proposal immediately following the end of the state legislative session in March, Althoff said, before debates about work requirements heated up at the congressional level.
Department officials presented their plan at the state Board of Social Services meeting Friday morning via video conference, just before the first of two public hearings on the proposal.
'Respectfully, humbly, we ask for your grace,' Althoff told board members, 'because we're asking for your feedback on something that might be obsoleted by the vote of 100 senators and the stroke of a pen from our president.'
Health care advocates form coalition urging Republicans to take their 'Hands Off Medicaid'
Medicaid is government-funded health insurance for people with low incomes. South Dakotans voted in 2022 to expand Medicaid to adults with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level, a decision that allowed the state to capitalize on a 90% federal funding match — funding that could be in jeopardy, pending the outcome of congressional action. Last year, voters passed another constitutional amendment to let the state seek approval from the federal government to impose work requirements on expansion enrollees.
At the federal level, proposed Medicaid work requirements would mandate those between ages 19 and 65 who rely on the program to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program for at least 80 hours each month. The work requirement would be applied at the time of application, and Medicaid renewal would be changed to every six months instead of an annual basis.
South Dakota's plan would require adult Medicaid recipients work, train, attend school or serve as a caretaker for a child or elderly or disabled person in their home unless they meet an exception. Compliance with the state-level work rules would be reviewed on an annual basis, at the time of Medicaid renewal, rather than at the time of application. The state would not require a set number of hours of work or education time.
Heather Petermann, Medicaid director at the department, said the requirement would be a 'complement' to Medicaid to 'encourage' work without 'trying to track arbitrary work hours.'
'This approach really recognizes that for many individuals who need assistance with health care, that comes first,' Petermann said. 'Then it allows them to maintain their health so that they can work, or obtain the health needed to seek employment.'
The federal government also has more exceptions in its proposal than the state, including tribal community members, people who are in foster care or were in foster care who are younger than 26, and people released from incarceration in the last 90 days.
South Dakota would allow exceptions for people who are:
Pregnant or postpartum.
Disabled, as determined by the Social Security Administration.
Diagnosed with cancer or another serious or terminal medical condition by a physician.
In an intensive behavioral health treatment program, hospitalized or living in a nursing home.
In an area with unemployment 20% or more above the national average and are exempt from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents.
As of last month, 30,542 South Dakotans were covered by the Medicaid expansion. The state estimates 80% of them already work or qualify for an exception.
SD seeks Medicaid work rules in spite of similar moves by Congress
The proposed state-level work requirement would reduce enrollment by an estimated 5-10% in the first year. That would save the Medicaid program between $48.9 million and $71 million in the first year, the department says.
The federal proposal as it stands now will cost more administratively than South Dakota's proposed work requirements, Althoff added. States 'will be asked to absorb' costs if the federal proposal is adopted. The state's proposal requires less administrative oversight to reduce anticipated costs, due in part to the state's tight budget approved by the Legislature this year.
'That's just sort of naming the tension about how not having new funds is sort of an important wrinkle to our development process,' Althoff said. 'It's really having to be done within an existing budget.'
Board member Colleen Winter said the proposal is 'respectful' of the individuals the department serves.
Work requirements are already in place for some federal programs, such as SNAP, and state efforts, such as child care assistance and parental reunification expectations within Child Protection Services.
While more than 20 people sat in on a virtual public hearing regarding the state's proposed Medicaid work requirements on Friday, only one member of the public spoke.
Attorney Nathaniel Amdur-Clark spoke on behalf of the Great Plains Tribal Leaders Health Board. He said his client wants to see an exception for Indian Health Service beneficiaries.
Native Americans who are tribal enrolled members are eligible to receive health care services through the federal Indian Health Service. Those individuals are eligible for Medicaid coverage even if they do not meet other Medicaid requirements, such as income limits, 'to implement and further trust and treaty obligations the U.S. has to provide health care' for tribal members, Amdur-Clark said.
Though Althoff and Petermann did not respond to Amdur-Clark's comments about IHS patients, they did address the subject during the earlier board meeting. Petermann said the proposal includes 'geographic exemptions,' including areas of the state with 'high unemployment.'
'Things like that would also apply to tribal members and American Indians, but we otherwise did not call out or exclude American Indians,' Petermann said. 'The approach is that this is a benefit and we want that dignity and pride to be part of the benefit for everybody, so they would be treated the same in this approach.'
Amdur-Clark added that there are technical concerns regarding exemptions in the proposal and that more work is needed to achieve 'real tribal consultation.' The department met with some tribal leaders last week to discuss the proposal, Althoff said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Shelly Ten Napel, CEO of the Community HealthCare Association of the Dakotas, said in an emailed statement that her organization is monitoring state and federal work requirement proposals closely. The group did not give input at the first public meeting, but plans to share its perspective on state work requirements during the public comment period.
Ten Napel opposed last year's ballot measure authorizing the state's pursuit of work requirements. Compared to the work requirement proposal being considered in Congress, Ten Napel said, the state proposal is 'overall pretty reasonable.'
Gov. Larry Rhoden's administration 'did a careful job of responding to concerns' raised during the debate last year, Ten Napel said, including administrative burdens and exceptions.
'We look forward to working with them to ensure smooth implementation of the new rules if they are approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,' Ten Napel said in the statement. 'We also encourage members of Congress to take a careful look at the common sense approach South Dakota is taking and rethink some of the heavy-handed rules currently under consideration in the Big Beautiful Bill.'
The 'big beautiful bill' is the budget reconciliation legislation that the U.S. House sent to the Senate last week, including a Medicaid work requirements provision.
Petermann said during the board meeting that South Dakota could perhaps seek to impose its own work requirements, even if the federal legislation passes.
'For example, some of the draft language does include references to things like 'the provisions from the federal legislation cannot be waived,' but we don't know whether that means states still could or couldn't have something that is less or more restrictive, as long as it has the same components,' Petermann said. 'We really don't know for sure yet.'
If the state moves forward, it will submit an application to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in July or August. After that, the proposal would go through a federal comment period and application review.
The department's next public hearing on the proposed Medicaid work requirements is set for 11 a.m. Central on June 12 at the Sioux Falls office of the Department of Social Services, and online.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom Just Dragged Bed Bath & Beyond For Refusing To Open Stores In California, And People Are Absolutely Loving The Pettiness
One word to describe Gavin Newsom these days is — unfiltered. The Governor of California and his team have been openly mocking Republicans from his Press Office X account... Related: And rage-baiting MAGA with culture war posts... Well, Newsom's latest target is the retail chain Bed Bath & Beyond, which is officially making a comeback after filing for bankruptcy and closing all 360 stores in 2023. The retail chain's executive chairman, Marcus Lemonis, recently announced that the franchise will not open any new stores in the state of California. Related: Lemonis wrote in a recent X post that the decision wasn't about politics, but rather "reality," citing "higher taxes, higher fees, and higher wages" in California as the main issues. "California's system makes it nearly impossible for businesses to succeed, and I won't put our company, our employees, or our customers in that position," Lemonis wrote. Related: Well, Newsom's response is going viral. People are loving it in the replies. Related: "I just cackled I'm sorry," this person commented. "lmfaooooo idgaf just make him president already. We deserve to go down as a nation with a hot sassy bitch from California," another person wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:

USA Today
5 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's GOP on verge of big Texas win, but battle for power is only starting: 5 takeaways
Trump's Texas fight is aimed at giving the GOP an advantage in 2026 and a lame-duck president more power while in office. Democrats have other plans. A partisan battle in Texas over who holds power in Washington during the final two years of President Donald Trump's second term has unfurled into a nationwide debate drawing in top political figures as voters brace for another divisive election in 2026. The Lone Star State's GOP lawmakers are poised to send new congressional maps to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Aug. 21 that Trump and his allies hope will give them a strategic advantage in holding onto their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. But the fight in Austin has spread beyond the state's borders and created significant uncertainty about who will be in position to govern during the second half of the Trump administration and after the next race for the White House. 'Game on,' New York Gov. Kathy Hochul wrote Aug. 20 in a social media post. She is one of several Democratic leaders considering their own steps like the Texas Republicans to re-draw congressional district borders inside their state. Here are five takeaways on the fast-spreading redistricting wars: Republicans have the upper hand if the redistricting war expands. States typically redo their congressional boundaries for voters every decade, specifically in the two years that follow a new census. But Trump has encouraged redistricting to happen ahead of the 2026 U.S. House elections. His motivation? The tendency of the party in the White House to lose seats in the U.S. House during the congressional elections that happen between presidential elections. Recent examples include the 1994, 2010, 2018 and 2022 political cycles. Trump and the GOP are hoping to break that trend or increase their 219-212 U.S. House majority through states with Republican legislatures that can draw congressional maps. By contrast, many Democratic states have passed laws and constitutional amendments creating independent commissions to draw their congressional district maps instead of politicians. That's part of why states such as Missouri and Indiana have discussed redistricting for Republican advantage, but the Democratic stronghold of Washington has ruled it out completely. Additionally, Ohio needs to re-draw its own congressional maps under a constitutionally-mandated process that would happen regardless of today's political climate, and Florida has created a special committee to re-draw congressional maps. Taken together, that means that there are three high-population states actively pursuing Republican seats, and so far California is the only major state likely to redistrict for Democrats ahead of 2026. A legal fight over the new Texas maps is brewing What's happening this week in Texas won't be the final say on whether the maps are permanent. That's for the courts to decide, though fights like this can take years to work their way through the system. Both Democrats and Republicans previewed their legal arguments during the Texas legislature's Aug. 20 House floor debate that ended in the House's approval of the Republican-favored new maps. Democratic lawmakers accused their GOP colleagues of 'packing' Hispanic voters into some districts and 'cracking' or 'diluting' their representation. Those are all key terms referring to practices that opponents have used when challenging maps in the past. They also asked Republicans whether they drew maps based on voters' Hispanic ethnicity since race-based gerrymandering is still illegal. Texas state Rep. Todd Hunter, the Republican author of the bill that changes the maps, explained that an outside law firm drew the maps, not members of the legislature or their in-house staff. He said he asked the firm to re-draw the maps to improve his party's 'political performance' in the state, using a term that he said was backed up by a recently decided federal court case. Hunter used the term repeatedly during hours of questioning by Democrats. Americans still don't like gerrymandering Americans haven't historically liked it when politicians draw maps in their favor, but they may support the practice when it benefits the party they agree with. A nationwide Reuters/Ipsos poll that ran from Aug. 13 to 18 found that a small majority of respondents thought the ongoing redistricting plans were 'bad for democracy,' and Democrats were more likely to think this than Republicans. A poll by the market research firm YouGov that ran Aug. 1 to 4 found that three-quarters of adults saw it as a 'major problem' when states draw maps to intentionally favor one party, and another one-fifth saw it as a 'minor problem.' These proportions, too, higher among Democrats and lower among Republicans. But in California, where Democratic lawmakers wants voters to decide in a Nov. 4 special election whether to redraw their own maps in favor of Democrats, a majority of voters support the initiative. The proposal has support from 57% of California voters, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom's own polling, as reported by Axios, including overwhelming support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition from Republicans. A Politico-UC Berkeley Citrin Center poll of nationwide voters that ran through Aug. 20 found about one-third of respondents said Democrats in California should 'fight back' with their own maps. That broke down to almost two-thirds of Democrats, one-third of independents, and about one-tenth of Republicans. New Democrats are getting their time in the spotlight Americans are seeing new faces emerge from the Democratic Party as they make national headlines fighting back against often better-known Texas Republicans. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, widely seen as a frontrunner for his party's presidential nomination in 2028, is one of them. His decision to go toe-to-toe with Texas and leverage his position in the only state with more congressional seats than the Lone Star State has meant an introduction to Americans all over the country and a national spotlight on his ideas. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, one of the names floated for vice president in 2024, got his name out there when he hosted Texas Democrats who fled their state for nearly two weeks. But the ongoing fight has also highlighted what anti-gerrymandering advocates have called an unfair map tilted toward Democrats in Illinois. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who says she wants to retaliate against Texas, is also gaining some attention. Another new face is Texas Rep. Nicole Collier of Fort Worth, who slept on the floor of the legislature. Texas Republican leaders have been requiring the Democratic lawmakers who broke quorum earlier this month to sign permission slips to leave the chamber and have a state police escort follow them around 24 hours a day to make sure they don't attempt to leave the state again. 'Today is not the end,' Collier said after the House passed the bill Aug. 20. 'It is the beginning, the start of a new Democratic party where we won't back down. … And we will push and push and push until we take over this country.' Barack Obama, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are all involved Trump kicked off the firestorm when he called on Texas lawmakers to redraw the maps and provide five more Republican-leaning congressional districts. Now he's going toe-to-toe with Democratic Party standard bearers who have come into the fight. Former President Barack Obama posted on X that the attempt to re-draw districts in Texas was an 'assault on democracy,' and praised Texas Democrats. Now he's endorsed Newsom's plan to redistrict California's congressional maps in retaliation. Former Vice President Kamala Harris also called Collier while she stayed in the legislature: 'You really are inspiring so many people, and I just want you to know that you are among those who history will reveal to have been heroes of this moment. So you just stay strong and do what you are doing.' Harris ruled out a run for governor of her home state of California in 2026, leaving Americans to wonder whether she'll run for president in 2028. Contributing: Kathryn Palmer, USA TODAY


The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's child care win is no victory for American families
Corrine Hendrickson opened Corrine's Little Explorers in New Glarus, Wisconsin nearly 18 years ago. She has served 70 children since then in her family child care business. But in August, she will be closing her doors, because operating the program is simply no longer sustainable. Similarly, Seedlings to Sunflowers, a child care program in Maine, is struggling. Forced to raise rates to meet rising expenses, it instead created a funding gap as parents left the program because they no longer could afford it. Seedlings recently crowdfunded $25,000 from community members and families to stay open, but this is not a sustainable strategy. Meanwhile, a mom in Bedford, Ohio was paid too little to afford child care — which cost her nearly twice family's rent — but too much to qualify for assistance. Ultimately, her husband quit his job to care for their child. These are some of the many reasons I am not doing a victory lap for the relatively meager child care provisions in the Trump mega-bill signed into law in July. The provisions in the bill would do nothing to help people like Hendrickson keep serving children. It would not allow Seedlings to Sunflowers keep its rates affordable or support families like the Ohio mother's family to find and afford child care. In this bill, Republicans haven't given families any new child care options or opportunities. The child care sector will not get new resources to expand or essential support for more stable operations, which means families will still struggle to find child care options that work for them. And the families that do find options still will have trouble paying the high prices. Some families may receive a bit more money through the bill's tax credit increase to help pay for child care. But the average credit for those who receive it will be about $890 — a small dent in the average annual child care cost of $13,128. Even those few families who might receive the new maximum credit of $3,000 will still be on the hook for a significant payment, which their low incomes will not likely accommodate. Meanwhile, many families will see their health care and food bills rise as a result of the bill, which may offset the increased child care credit. And if their child care provider is losing health insurance at the same time or leaving a job because of the bill's cuts to Medicaid, their child care arrangement may become more unstable. The bill's support for child care relies on tax credits and deferrals, disproportionately benefiting wealthier families and corporations — an overall theme of the bill itself. Specifically, the bill expands three tax programs. The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit is a credit that comes to you after you have spent the money up front. The credit won't be of any use if you can't afford to pay for child care up front, can't find care that meets your needs or don't earn enough to pay taxes. The Dependent Care Assistance Program allows parents whose employers participate to opt into accounts that set aside pre-tax dollars to pay for child care expenses. Parents who use these flexible spending accounts cannot also use the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit for the same expenses. The Employer-Provided Child Care Credit provides employers a tax credit for spending resources on child care-related expenses. What families need is reliable, stable child care options that meet their needs — affordable, convenient, with no wait list. They want to know their children are safe, happy, healthy and learning, and the early educators who care for them are being paid well to stay in the profession they love. The big Republican bill provides none of that. We're holding our elected officials to too low a standard if we are calling this bill a child care win for families when millions will still be left struggling to find and afford child care. When taken in its entirety, the bill is a major net loss for children and families. It is hard to squint at this and see 'incremental progress' and 'bipartisan support' when Republicans control Washington and insist on throwing child care policy into chaos. They have been freezing, unfreezing, delaying and then moving forward child care and Head Start funding to states and programs, and proposing cuts to major child care and early learning programs in their federal budget proposal. Not to mention the DOGE cuts that pushed out about half of federal Office of Child Care staff and shut down important regional Child Care and Head Start offices. Political leadership should strive toward a future where Hendrickson, the mother in Ohio and families around the country would have something to celebrate. We already see candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia centering their plans for affordable child care in their campaigns. Same goes for Zohran Mamdani's upset victory in New York City where he ran on free child care made possible by richer New Yorkers paying their fair share. We should hold our elected representatives to a higher standard to address the concerns of families, not jump up and down when they mention those concerns while backing up the Brinks truck for the wealthy. Julie Kashen is the director of Women's Economic Justice and senior fellow at the Century Foundation.