South Dakota tobacco tax shift burns up mosquito control money for cities, counties
A move to put more tobacco tax money toward South Dakota's day-to-day government expenses might mean more mosquito bites — and a greater risk of West Nile virus — after July.
Gov. Larry Rhoden signed Senate Bill 54 into law on Friday. It reduces the amount of yearly tobacco tax revenue used to help people quit and avoid smoking from $5 million to $2 million. The rest of the money raised annually by the tax — more than $40 million, typically — goes to the state's general fund.
Backers of the bill said smoking rates have dropped, the need for prevention is lower, and the state needs the money to pay for its expanded Medicaid program. Opponents called the move foolish, citing spikes in the use of nicotine vape products as a blind spot in tobacco prevention that could cause public health trouble down the road.
One piece of the tobacco tax change didn't get much attention, though.
For the past 10 years, South Dakota has funneled a half-million dollars of the sin tax bounty it collects annually from tobacco users into mosquito control grants for cities and counties.
Those grants, cities and counties learned last week, won't be available for the next fiscal year, which starts July 1.
The goal of the grant program was to reduce the risk of West Nile virus, the most severe version of which can be deadly. Fifty-four South Dakotans have died from West Nile since 1999.
The loss of the grant money could impact smaller communities more than larger ones. Joe Kippley, public health director for the city of Sioux Falls, said his department anticipated the loss and has budgeted to continue mosquito spraying.
In smaller towns, the loss of grant funding could be a little harder to replace.
After this summer, 'we're not sure what will happen,' Viborg Finance Officer Brandy Skonhovd said.
The story of how cigarette dollars turned into insecticide grants begins in 2006.
That's the year voters passed Initiated Measure 2, which slapped an additional $1-per-pack tax on cigarettes and an extra 25% tax on other forms of tobacco on top of the state's existing tobacco taxes.
The first $30 million of tax revenue generated as a result went to the state's general fund, the measure specified, after which $5 million would be put in the Tobacco Prevention and Reduction Trust Fund and used for anti-smoking programming.
Tax collections beyond $35 million would split between the Property Tax Reduction Fund, the Education Enhancement Tobacco Trust Fund and the Health Care Tobacco Trust Fund.
That setup had shifted by 2014.
That's the year Doneen Hollingsworth, who was the secretary of the Department of Health, asked lawmakers to sign off on using a half-million dollars from the $5 million anti-smoking fund for mosquito control grants.
The recession of 2007 through 2009 tightened budgets, she said. The state had already begun to dip into that fund to pay for things like childhood immunizations, she told them, and there was a new problem to address in 2014.
The federal money for West Nile monitoring and mosquito control made available to states when the virus first emerged had dried up. Then-Gov. Dennis Daugaard proposed using tobacco tax money that year, Hollingsworth said, 'to address this urgent public health issue' by keeping the grant money flowing to local governments.
That wouldn't break the law, Hollingsworth assured the Legislature's Joint Appropriations Committee.
The state, in 2014 and today, gets about a million anti-smoking dollars a year from the federal government. As long as that money is available, she said, the state could skim up to a million prevention trust fund dollars off the top and still meet voters' expectations.
'We've always spent at least $5 million on tobacco prevention and control,' she said.
Since then, the state has spent about $5 million from the fund to control mosquitoes. Grant awards, used for chemicals or the equipment needed to spray it, are tied to the prevalence and risk of West Nile in local communities.
During debate on this year's legislative Senate Bill 54, Bureau of Finance and Management Commissioner Jim Terwilliger told lawmakers it never made much sense to tie the grants to tobacco funding.
'That's an example of the different things that I think can go away, and we could be smarter with these funds,' the commissioner told the Senate Appropriations Committee in February, during his pitch for reducing the amount of tobacco tax money the state spends on anti-smoking programs.
Terwilliger rattled off statistics on lower smoking rates among teens and adults in the years since voters passed the tobacco tax, too, and said South Dakota spends more on anti-tobacco programming than other states.
Jennifer Stalley, Midwest policy director for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, was on hand to refute Terwilliger point-by-point in her opposition testimony.
But she and Terwilliger saw eye to eye on one thing.
'I would tell you that I don't think that fits within the letter of the law,' Stalley said of the use of tobacco money for mosquito control.
Lawmakers' passage of SB 54 put an end to the $500,000 carve-out for West Nile, and appropriators didn't supplement the state budget with any replacement funds to keep the grants going.
Tia Kafka, spokeswoman for the state Department of Health, said the state will continue parts of its West Nile virus programming. That includes federally funded risk prediction modeling and a federally funded epidemiologist to serve as the program's overseer.
Also continued will be the state's West Nile Virus dashboard, which shows modeled risk and the mapped results of the mosquito collection efforts that attempt to catalog the prevalence of the mosquito species that spread the virus.
'However, very limited mosquito testing will occur in 2025, and the program's sustainability beyond that year is uncertain,' Kafka said.
Virus modeling predicted 60 cases for 2024; the dashboard lists 21 total West Nile cases and one death from the disease. The Health Department's website does not show a prediction for 2025.
It costs Viborg around $2,500 to buy the insecticide used to reduce West Nile risk, according to Skonhovd, the city finance officer. The city got $8,000 last year, though, to pay for new equipment.
The spraying in and around the southeast South Dakota town of 834 starts in May and continues into the fall.
'When we have football games, we try to keep the mosquito population down for those,' Skonhovd said.
Paul Kosel runs the mosquito control program for Groton, population 1,355. Kosel is also the newspaper publisher and information technology supervisor for the community, bordered by wetlands on the eastern side of Brown County. That county has long been the state's most reliably risky for West Nile in the two-plus decades the disease has been endemic in South Dakota.
'Trying to do mosquito control in Groton is a living nightmare because we're surrounded by water,' Kosel said.
Kosel and Skonhovd both say they feel confident they'll be able to pay for this year's work with the money that's available until July 1, when the tobacco-funded grant spigot turns off with the end of the state's fiscal year.
After that, they both hope the state finds a way to keep things going. Insecticide and equipment can be a strain on a small-town budget.
'It's not cheap, that's for sure,' Kosel said.
Larger cities could have an easier time. Joe Kippley, public health director for the city of Sioux Falls, set aside $750,000 for mosquito control this summer. Last year, the city received $20,000 from the state for spraying, but Kippley said the city knew the money would go away this year, and that it had previously set its budget up to withstand the expense of spraying with or without state help.
'We do not budget for these grant dollars annually because they are distributed through an application process and are therefore not guaranteed each year,' Kippley said in an emailed statement. 'The discontinuation of this funding will not impact the city's mosquito control program and services.'
This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Tobacco tax shift burns up mosquito control money for cities, counties
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill targets NJ's worst nursing homes with new penalties
New Jersey nursing homes that routinely receive low scores would face greater sanctions from state regulators, including the possibility of forced closure, under a bill making its way through Trenton. The measure targets nursing homes that have scored one star on a federal rating system in two or more consecutive quarters — a hallmark sign that the homes' owners are likely misusing large portions of taxpayer funds intended for care, State Comptroller Kevin Walsh said at a legislative hearing on June 9. "They don't get to be one-star nursing homes because the nurse is inexperienced or the administrator is inexperienced," said Walsh, whose staff has investigated nursing home fraud for years. "The reality is poor-quality nursing homes are usually in the condition they're in because of corruption and fraud."The hearing comes on the heels of an investigation by AARP into New Jersey nursing home finances. The organization found that from 2021 to 2023, nursing home owners paid $2 billion to companies in which the owners had a stake. This amounted to $285 million over federal guidelines. A frequent practice is that a nursing home owner uses a corporation that owns the property to charge "unrestricted rent and lease fees" to the nursing home using Medicaid dollars to pay themselves, the AARP report said. This includes many other nursing home operations such as management fees, dietary services and staffing. "There's a lot of money going to places it shouldn't," Walsh said. Under the bill, S1951, nursing homes with one-star ratings in two consecutive quarters would be subject to several penalties from the state Health Department including barring admission to new Medicaid residents, limiting the number of Medicaid enrollees and reducing payments under a quality incentive program. More: What happens when an elderly relative can't live alone? What to know about aging in NJ The penalties get tougher if a nursing home has a one-star rating for three consecutive quarters. They include prohibiting the nursing home from admitting any new resident and removing current residents who are Medicaid enrollees. Some lawmakers said the bill doesn't go far enough and that it should examine nursing homes that receive more than one star (on a five-star scale) but still perform poorly. 'What this bill will do is walk [owners] away from providing the worst-quality care,' Walsh said. 'This bill will not prevent every scam. This bill will not prevent fraud, waste and abuse in all cases. It will discourage nursing homes that have made a business decision to siphon money away." Of New Jersey's 350 nursing homes, 15 had been one-star facilities for two or more years, Walsh said. Those facilities care for 1,850 residents and received $310 million in Medicaid payments from 2017 to 2019. Walsh said it took his staff two years to uncover the labyrinth of shell companies and financial transactions that exposed misdeeds at a South Jersey nursing home. About 57% of New Jersey nursing home residents are covered by Medicaid, taxpayer-funded insurance for low-income people. The average daily Medicaid payment to a nursing home is $193 per resident. The star rating system by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was devised as a way for families to compare nursing homes and scrutinize the ones that continually score poorly. It is calculated based on health inspections, staffing ratios and other quality measures. But information on each facility is still limited. "I know more about the used car I buy than a nursing home," Sen. Joseph Vitale, chair of the Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee, said at the hearing. The bill was approved by the committee. Nursing home trade groups opposed the measure but did not offer anyone to testify at the hearing. This article originally appeared on Bill targets NJ's worst nursing homes with new penalties
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Tariffs are raising health care costs and putting patients at risk
Lately, my bi-weekly calls with my 24-year-old daughter, a medical assistant preparing for med school, are starting to sound more like supply chain audits. She tells me which items are running low at her clinic and how the team is scrambling to provide quality care to patients. Having been raised by a parent who managed global supply chains, she knows these aren't just inventory issues — they are cracks in a fragile health care system now under further strain from President Trump's tariffs and the uncertainty surrounding them. Last year alone, the U.S. imported more than $75 billion in medical devices and supplies. While headlines have focused on potentially higher costs for pharmaceuticals and high-tech medical equipment, the more urgent and often overlooked concern is the availability of basic, everyday lifesaving supplies. Gloves, syringes, sterile water, IV fluids and even diapers may seem mundane, but they are the lifeblood of clinical care. Hospitals spend approximately 25 percent of their budget on these high-volume items. Most of these essentials are imported. For example, two-thirds of non-disposable face masks and 94 percent of plastic gloves used in U.S. health care settings come from China. Already impacted by tariffs implemented last year to counter low-cost imports, these products are now becoming even more expensive. Enteral syringes used to deliver medication or nutrition through feeding tubes are now subject to a staggering 245 percent tariff, according to one group purchasing organization. If trade tensions continue to escalate, we could see a return to pandemic-era supply shortages — or worse. As hospitals prepare for these impacts, it's their patients who will bear the repercussions. The American Hospital Association recently reported that 82 percent of health care leaders expect tariff-related price hikes to increase hospital costs by at least 15 percent within six months. One major health system in Washington projected that tariffs could increase annual costs by $10 to $25 million. With Medicaid reimbursement rates set by the government and private insurance reimbursement rates held in place by contracts, hospitals can't easily pass on these increases. Instead, they absorb the costs and find other cuts, like reducing staffing or delaying upgrades. That could mean longer wait times, postponed procedures and ultimately, worse outcomes for patients. Rural hospitals and community providers already operating on razor-thin margins will feel these burdens most acutely. Close to 200 rural hospitals have closed in the past two decades, and nearly 700, or close to one-third of all additional rural hospitals, are at risk of closing in the near future. When policymakers impose sweeping trade measures without fully considering downstream effects, the entire health care system suffers the consequences. The disruption often costs more than the policy itself, in both dollars and diminished patient care. Health care policy is essential for a productive economy, which is the main goal of the president's tariffs. Medical supplies should be exempted from tariffs. This would help to ensure more consistent pricing and ensure Americans have access to the health care essentials they need. Policymakers can also help bring manufacturing for some of these products back home by investing in more public-private partnerships and supporting infrastructure and workforce development to encourage companies to make these goods in the U.S. Finally, the federal and state governments can reengineer the procurement processes for Medicare and Medicaid, and enact measures to ensure more efficient practices in the private sector to enable competition and fair prices. Pharmacy benefit managers and Group Purchasing Organizations need to work on behalf of the patients, hospitals and clinics to better manage costs, similar to processes in other supply chain systems. Overall, policymakers must understand that while tariffs may shift economic leverage, they also shift risk onto patients. My daughter is learning this lesson on the front lines. She went into medicine to deliver care. Lately, and too often, she's just delivering bad news. Jack Buffington is Supply Chain Management Professor at the University of Denver. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Don't cut off Medicaid for people in jail awaiting trial
Every day across this country, thousands of people presumed innocent are locked up awaiting trial. For many of them — particularly those battling substance use disorders or mental illness — that jail cell is more than just a loss of freedom. It often comes with the loss of health care coverage. In many states, Medicaid and other health care benefits are suspended or terminated the moment the patient is booked into jail. This policy puts lives at risk and creates gaps in care. And for those of us who have lived through addiction or worked alongside people in recovery, we know just how dangerous that gap can be. Our prison and jail systems need the Due Process Continuity of Care Act, because it will help maintain Medicaid coverage during pretrial incarceration. It's up to Congress to follow through and pass this important piece of legislation, to shift from a model that prioritizes severe punishment to one that prioritizes care and continuity. People are struggling and deserve a chance to get better, not get worse, simply because they were arrested. The link between incarceration and behavioral health is no coincidence. So many people end up in jail not because they're dangerous, but because they're living with untreated mental health challenges or deep in addiction and haven't gotten the help they need. And the damage doesn't stop at the jail door. When people are released, often without any plan to restart their medical benefits or reconnect to care, they walk right back into the same instability, only now with deeper trauma and fewer resources. It's no surprise that the risk of overdose skyrockets after release. Studies show people are up to 129 times more likely to die of a drug overdose in the first two weeks after leaving jail or prison. I've seen firsthand the deadly consequences when someone is locked up pretrial and loses access to their medications, therapy or support systems. People are in withdrawal. They suffer in silence and spiral without the care they relied on outside those walls. Our jails, already under-resourced and overwhelmed, have become the frontlines of a behavioral health crisis they were never built to manage. They're acting as detox centers and psychiatric hospitals by default, and that's not just unsustainable, it's inhumane. Keeping health care coverage active during pretrial incarceration isn't just the right thing to do morally, it's smart policy. It prevents needless suffering, reduces recidivism, and eases the burden on emergency services and hospitals. It helps people transition from jail back into their communities with the support they need to stay healthy and free. And ultimately, it saves money by keeping people out of crisis and out of the revolving door of the criminal legal system. Let's be clear: taking health care away from someone who hasn't yet been convicted of a crime is not justice. It's a systemic failure. If we truly believe in second chances, if we believe in treating addiction and mental illness as health issues, not criminal ones, then we have to make sure that care doesn't stop at the jailhouse door. Health care is a lifeline. Let's stop cutting that lifeline when people need it most. John Bowman is Kentucky senior campaign organizer. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
