Lawmakers advance bill to cut tobacco-use prevention fund by $2 million
State Sen. Kevin Jensen, R-Canton, contemplates a committee vote during the South Dakota legislative session in Pierre on Jan. 29, 2025. Also pictured is Sen. Sydney Davis, R-Burbank. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight)
PIERRE — A committee of South Dakota lawmakers advanced a bill 5-2 on Wednesday at the Capitol to reduce state funding for tobacco and vaping prevention efforts.
But the lawmakers softened the proposed cut following a debate over public health and budget priorities.
The bill, originally intended to slash annual funding for the state's Tobacco Prevention and Reduction Trust Fund from $5 million to $2 million, was amended to set the new funding level at $3 million.
Prevention groups fear consequences from Noem's proposal to reduce funding for anti-tobacco efforts
The bill is a priority of former Gov. Kristi Noem, and now Gov. Larry Rhoden's administration. The Senate Health and Human Services Committee sent the amended bill to the Legislature's budget committee with a positive recommendation.
Bureau of Finance and Management Commissioner Jim Terwilliger said the state needs to make budget cuts to help cover a $62 million increase in Medicaid costs.
Opponents of the bill, including public health advocates and medical organizations, warned that reducing tobacco prevention funding could undo years of progress in reducing smoking and vaping rates, particularly among youth.
Terwilliger said smoking rates have declined significantly in South Dakota over the past two decades.
'The $5 million that's been spent has been successful, certainly, but you're also looking at a smaller problem to tackle, if you will, in terms of tobacco prevention,' he said.
Terwilliger said the state receives $1 million annually in federal tobacco prevention grants, which will remain intact. The reduced state contribution would continue funding South Dakota's QuitLine services and other prevention efforts, he said.
Public health advocates pushed back, saying the state is trading short-term savings for long-term costs in health care.
South Dakota voters approved a 2006 ballot measure to dedicate a portion of increased cigarette tax revenue to prevention efforts. Jennifer Stalley, a lobbyist for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, helped make that happen. She warned that the bill undermines that commitment and could lead to a resurgence of youth tobacco use, particularly vaping and nicotine pouches.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Stalley said the state is spending $5 million to fight a $75 million annual problem in smoking-related health care costs, driving up the cost of Medicaid.
'Taking our foot off the gas right now, because we're doing well, isn't going to make sure that we are successful,' she said. 'It's going to make sure that in five years or 10 years – hopefully, not me – we're going to be back here going through this litany of asks again to get back to a successful program.'
Kim Malsam-Rysdon is a former secretary of the state Department of Health and a current Avera Health lobbyist. Avera has a contract to manage the state's QuitLine program. She said it is one of the most effective in the nation with a 49% long-term success rate.
'We need to continue to fund these services. We also need to continue our other prevention services so that people never have to get to the QuitLine,' she said.
Sen. Tim Reed, R-Brookings, successfully proposed the amendment to set the new funding level at $3 million instead of the originally proposed $2 million. He said the change is a compromise that acknowledges budget constraints while hopefully preserving key prevention efforts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
700 Rhode Islanders to lose Medicaid coverage; state blames old mistake
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — While Democrats are fighting proposed Medicaid cuts at the federal level, Rhode Islanders are facing their own cuts on the state level due to a change in the program's income limit. 'I think the only reason that a state would be motivated to do that is to save money,' said Sam Salganik, executive director of RIPIN, a nonprofit that helps people navigate the health care system. Salganik said the state used to have an income limit of about $19 an hour for a single parent of two. But he said the state is now lowering that to roughly $18.30. REPORT: 366K+ Rhode Islanders would be impacted by proposed Medicaid cuts A spokesperson for the state's Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) said 700 parents and caretakers will lose Medicaid coverage because of the new income limit, which was put in place due to a mistake made years ago. According to the state agency, it will take effect for new patients beginning this month. 'If [the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)] has not approved the state to spend federal Medicaid money for a certain group at a certain income level, the state is not allowed to do so,' spokesperson Kerri White wrote. But Salganik said the federal income limit is the floor, not the ceiling. 'States always have the flexibility to have higher income limits than the minimums that were established by the Affordable Care Act, as long as it's part of the approved state Medicaid plan,' he explained. 'And this has been part of the approved state Medicaid plan for many, many years.' Salganik is also concerned this is being done through agency regulations rather than the legislative budget process. 'This is an example of why administrative departments need to do the fundamental things right the first time,' House Speaker Joe Shekarchi wrote in a statement to 12 News. 'Errors like these have real consequences.' MORE: Suspected Medicaid fraud in RI sparks criminal probe, proposed changes EOHHS said affected Medicaid recipients will be sent a letter, but they'll be able to keep their benefits until their annual renewal, or until a quarterly post-eligibility verification process. White said the change will save $1.9 million in state funds and $4.5 million when federal money is included. And while EOHHS said people will be able to buy coverage through HealthSource RI, Salgank said that will still cost low-income parents hundreds of dollars each year, if not more. 'It's just one more cost that is really difficult for them to afford,' he said. Download the and apps to get breaking news and weather alerts. Watch or with the new . Follow us on social media: Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rural Maryland Medicaid recipients risk coverage, provider shortage under Trump bill
Jun. 9—Many Marylanders are reeling as the U.S. Senate prepares to debate President Donald Trump's "one, big, beautiful bill," which proposes more than $720 billion in cuts to Medicaid. Subscribe to continue reading this article. Already subscribed? To log in, click here. Originally Published:June 9, 2025 at 5:00 AM EDT
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why There Is So Much Worry In Public Media That Donald Trump Will Win Fight To Defund NPR, PBS And Local Stations
The House Rules Committee on Tuesday will take up a so-called 'rescissions' package that includes clawing back nearly $1.1 billion in funding for NPR, PBS and local public broadcasting stations, a move that has raised alarm bells among public media leaders. There's ample reason for worry, especially that sentiment has shifted even among those who once were staunch advocates. More from Deadline Trump Administration Sends Congress Its Proposal To Rescind NPR, PBS And Public Media Station Funding Judge Denies Corporation For Public Broadcasting's Motion In Trump Case, But Ruling Still Allows For Three Board Members To Remain — Update Trump Sending In The Marines As Newsom Sues Over "Illegal Order" To Deploy National Guard In LA Over ICE Protests A case in point is Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Once a solid defender of continued federal funding, Cole last week was far less committal. Asked whether his past support for public media had changed, Cole told Deadline, 'No, but I have an up-and-down vote. So, I mean, there's always going to be things in here that you prefer not be, but they are. And so, again, we are going to look at the package and vote accordingly.' The package also calls for revoking funding for foreign aid programs. Seven years ago, Cole was vocal in his desire to preserve funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes federal funds to public media entities, as the Trump administration sought to zero it out in their budget request. At the time, Cole led the House subcommittee that oversees funding for the CPB. Noting that he was from 'probably the reddest state in the union,' Cole told Variety back then, 'If you look at the range of services it provides, the quality of programming and the points of view it expresses, I just think for the amount of money we are talking about here, and the multiplier effect, it is able to sustain itself. I don't see Congress having the desire [to cut funding] because they reflect the desire of the American people.' At the time, Cole also noted that targeting public broadcasting funding is 'nickel and dime-ing things' in deficit reduction, when the real issue is in reforming entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Public media has survived past efforts to zero out funding. In 2011, House Republicans passed a bill to cut federal funds to NPR, but it died in the Senate. In each of the four years of Trump's first term, his administration sent budgets to the hill that cut all funding to the CPB, but the recommendation went nowhere. But times are different now, as fewer GOP lawmakers are willing to face the potential wrath of going against the president's wishes, in this case a rescissions package initiated by the White House. Trump's proposal to Congress calls for rescinding CPB's entire $535 million allocation in fiscal 2026 and the same amount in fiscal 2027. Congress already approved those amounts with bipartisan support in previous budget cycles. Leaders of the CPB, PBS and NPR warn of 'devastating impact' on member stations in particular, including those in rural areas that rely on a larger share of federal funding for their budgets. While private contributions and corporate support have helped support programming, particularly high-profile series, the worry is that services like emergency communications, early learning programs and local content will be particularly hard hit, with some communities left with news deserts. Friends of OETA, which raises funds and support for the Oklahoma Education Television Authority, is urging Cole and other members of the state's congressional delegation to oppose the rescissions package, calling it 'absolutely the wrong policy tool at the wrong time.' They warned that it would 'throw the PBS system into chaos by reneging on commitments already made and undermining plans already executed,' including workforce development and civics education programming. 'Without CPB funding to local PBS stations, OETA would not be able to operate,' the group said. Advocates also point to public sentiment. A Pew Research Center poll earlier this year showed that 43% of Americans said NPR and PBS should continue to receive federal funding, compared with 24% said that it should be ended, while 33% were not sure. Still, there was a partisan split on the question, with 44% of Republicans saying that funding should be ended, just 19% say it should be continued, and 37% are not sure.. By contrast, 69% of Democrats say it should retained, 5% say it should end and 26% are not sure. A recent YouGov survey gave PBS and NPR high trust scores, above the average for outlets, and that the trust has grown in the past year. That said, the Trump administration's stated reason for rolling back public media funding is that it is 'politically biased and an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer.' Trump earlier signed an executive order directing federal agencies to slash funding to PBS and NPR, something that both outlets are challenging in court. The White House has attacked the two networks as ones that 'spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news.'' More recently, some Republicans calling to defund public media have pointed to a Sesame Street X post celebrating Pride month. Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) responded, 'PBS is shamelessly grooming our children while collecting taxpayer dollars. This is evil and should infuriate every parent in America. DEFUND!!' Sesame Street, produced by a separate entity from PBS, recently signed a deal with Netflix to debut new episodes at the same time that they air on PBS. Public media advocates also have invoked Sesame Street characters in the push to retain federal funding. That includes a viral Elmo 'open to work' campaign from a group not affiliated with PBS or Sesame Street. A mock LinkedIn post has Elmo looking for a job, and the message, 'If you hear of any opportunities, or want a hug, let's connect. And if you want to help Elmo and his friends, please urge your local congress person to save Public Media.' There's also a link to the campaign led by advocacy group America's Public Television Stations. The funding battle also has been the source of AI-generated memes that see Muppets looking for work. With Republicans holding a slim 220-212 majority in the House, a handful of holdouts can sink the legislation if all Democrats stay united, as expected. Rep. Don Bacon (R-OK) told the New York Times that he is against the package, given its cuts to foreign aid programs to provide medicine and AIDS prevention. Politico reported Monday that at least 10 moderate Republicans have privately said that they oppose the legislation. Later on Monday, Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) joined with Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NV), his fellow co-chair in the Public Media Caucus, in releasing a statement opposing the public broadcasting rescission. 'While we reaffirm that public media must be objective and legitimate concerns about content should be addressed, funding decisions should be objective as well,' they said. In the Senate, where Republicans have a 53-47 majority, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) expressed her support for federal funding in an op-ed last month. But with so much scrutiny over the cost of Trump's separate tax and spend bill, and former No. 1 ally Elon Musk warning it will bankrupt the government, will GOPers look to the rescissions package as a way to prove their fiscal hawkishness? Last week, in an interview with The Hill, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) praised his state's public television entity and recognized its value to rural America, but said that he still intended to support the rescissions package. As one public media advocate said last week, the worry is that no GOP 'hero' has emerged to take on the fight for funding, at a time when so much else is vying for attention. If federal funding is clawed back, there will be plenty of people taking a cue from Elmo to find work via LinkedIn, and this time it will be for real. Best of Deadline A Full Timeline Of Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni's 'It Ends With Us' Feud In Court, Online & In The Media Where To Watch All The 'John Wick' Movies: Streamers That Have All Four Films 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery
