NEW BURN PIT LAWS INCREASING NUMBERS FOR THE SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
PIERRE, S.D. (John Hult / South Dakota Searchlight) – A federal law extending medical benefits to service members exposed to toxic burn pits has hiked the number of claims processed annually by the South Dakota Department of Veterans Affairs since 2021.
Department Secretary Greg Whitlock told the Legislature’s Government Operations and Audit Committee on Tuesday in Pierre that the recent spike in claims is directly related to the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxins (PACT) Act, signed into law in 2022.
“Our claims office has been processing a record number of claims,” Whitlock said.
The act widened the number of veterans eligible for benefits as a result of exposure to toxic burn pit smoke, or to chemicals like Agent Orange, during their service. The law added 23 illnesses to the list of conditions that the federal Department of Veterans Affairs presumes are connected to military service, eliminating the need to prove that the conditions are connected to military service through medical examinations.
Eligibility for benefits is tied to current service-related health concerns, with veterans who don’t have current conditions becoming eligible for VA care in phases. Veterans can also be eligible for VA care under previously existing criteria.
The latest data from the federal VA shows 6,956 PACT Act claims filed in South Dakota through Sept. 16.
The state-level veterans department processes applications for benefits, including applications for PACT Act benefits, and forwards them to the appropriate federal agency. Veterans can also apply for PACT Act benefits online through U.S. Veterans Affairs.
In 2021, the department took in fewer than 600 claims a month for all types of veteran benefits, according to a performance metrics document the department delivered to the committee. Today, two years after the PACT Act was signed, Whitlock’s team is handling more than 1,000 claims a month, and is on pace to surpass the 2023 annual high of 11,346.
The office has maintained customer service throughout, Whitlock told the lawmakers. Just two of the department’s 8,620 claims filed through August of this year have taken more than two business days to process. That’s an improvement over 2023, when 42 claims took between three and four days.
In an emailed statement sent after Tuesday’s meeting, Whitlock said most of the claims processed in South Dakota were for Vietnam War veterans who’d been denied benefits when they returned home decades ago.
Whitlock wrote that the spike in work, which has not required the department to hire any additional help, is “a good thing.”
“Since the passage, our team has worked diligently on outreach to ensure veterans who are entitled to the care receive it,” he wrote.
Whitlock also told the committee that his agency is working to address hiring difficulties at the state Veterans Home in Hot Springs. The home is an assisted living facility, but also offers physical and speech therapy, mental health services and a range of other services.
The home has relied on contracted temp employees to help meet its staffing needs since 2022.
“There are two other nursing homes we compete with, plus the VA hospital (in Hot Springs) and the Fall River Hospital,” Whitlock said.
The department partnered with Western Dakota Technical College by offering a satellite location for the school’s Licensed Professional Nursing program, Whitlock said, and is using a federal grant to help pay for its nursing recruitment efforts in southwestern South Dakota. The department also offers scholarships and student loan repayment programs.
AMENDMENT F IS SENDING THE DEBATE OF A MEDICAID WORK REQUIREMENT TO THE VOTERS
SOUTH DAKOTA Undated (Seth Tupper / South Dakota Searchlight) – Supporters of work requirements say they’re a reasonable modification to Medicaid expansion. Opponents say they’re an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on people who need health care.
Voters have a choice between those two perspectives as they consider Amendment F, one of seven statewide questions on South Dakota’s Nov. 5 general election ballot.
Medicaid is a federal-state health insurance program for people with low incomes. In the past, Medicaid was not available to able-bodied adults younger than 65, unless they were below the poverty line and had young children.
In 2022, South Dakota voters expanded Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level. The expansion is now part of the state constitution and can only be altered by voters. It includes a ban on “greater or additional burdens or restrictions” such as a work requirement.
Earlier this year, legislators decided to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot this fall. Amendment F would allow lawmakers to consider a work requirement if the federal government permits it. The Democratic Biden administration does not allow it, but future Republican presidents might.
Rep. Tony Vehhuizen, R-Sioux Falls, was a prime sponsor of the bill that sent Amendment F to voters. The measure “is not about establishing a work requirement,” he said during a September debate in Mitchell.
“It’s about removing a prohibition that’s in our constitution,” he said.
While that’s true, a bill to impose work requirements would likely succeed under the current and foreseeable political conditions in South Dakota. Many Republican legislators support a work requirement, and 90% of legislators are Republican, as is the governor.
Venhuizen said those who can work their way off Medicaid should be encouraged to do so.
“I think we have social programs to give people a hand up, help them get back on their feet, help them become self-supporting again,” he said during the September debate.
Legislators could include exceptions for people such as cancer patients, students in higher education, and those caring for young kids or sick relatives, he added.
Amendment F’s critics say a work requirement would do more harm than good.
Democratic former legislator Mel Olson, who now works for KMIT Radio in Mitchell, spoke critically of work requirements while asking questions during last month’s debate. Olson said imposing a work requirement would enlarge state bureaucracy with new employees, regulations and enforcement mechanisms.
Venhuizen replied that South Dakota has administered work requirements in other social programs, “so I’m very confident we’d be able to do it in an efficient way.”
Olson also said South Dakota’s unemployment rate of about 2% suggests nobody is “freeloading.” A 2021 national analysis by KFF, a nonprofit formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation, found that 61% of Medicaid enrollees from ages 19 to 64 were working full- or part-time. Thirty percent were not working because they were caregivers, were ill or disabled, or were attending school. The remaining 9% were retired, unable to find work, or not working for another reason.
Two states, Georgia and Arkansas, have imposed Medicaid work requirements. Georgia is not a typical Medicaid expansion state, having conducted a more limited expansion of eligibility than the one allowed by the federal Affordable Care Act. The Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation focused on health care, reports that Georgia’s “stringent requirements for documenting and reporting work hours” have held new enrollments far short of the state’s expansion projections.
A judge invalidated Arkansas’ work requirements in 2019 after the Trump administration approved them. The administration failed to adequately consider how the requirements would affect Medicaid’s core purpose of providing health care for needy people, the judge ruled.
During the nine months that the Arkansas requirements were in effect, about 18,000 enrollees lost coverage, according to KFF. The Commonwealth Fund said survey research revealed many enrollees “found the reporting process confusing or inaccessible, and nearly a third of the target population was unaware of the policy altogether.” People who lost coverage reported delaying care, skipping medications and incurring medical debt, the foundation said, and there was no increase in employment among the target population.
Shelly Ten Napel, CEO of the Community HealthCare Association of the Dakotas, called the Arkansas work requirements “an abject failure” during the September debate in Mitchell.
She predicted a similar outcome for work requirements in South Dakota, saying they would hinder efforts to enroll people under the voter-approved expansion.
“We need to head in the right direction, versus rolling this back and implementing a policy that has been proven to keep people from the health care that they need,” Ten Napel said.
Venhuizen countered that “there really hasn’t been a state that has had the time to get a Medicaid work requirement off the ground in an expansion program and have time to make it work.”
Approximately 145,000 South Dakotans are enrolled in Medicaid, including about 27,000 who’ve enrolled via expanded eligibility. The state’s current annual budget for Medicaid is about $2 billion, with 70% of the funding from the federal government.
GOVERNOR BURGUM CALLING NATIONAL GUARD INTO THE FIGHT AGAINST WILDFIRES IN WESTERN NORTH DAKOTA
WILLISTON, N.D. – Governor Burgum is ordering North Dakota National Guard troops and airmen to help fight the wildfires burning in the western part of the state.
They are joining other groups, including crews from the Forest Service and county fire departments at the Bear Den Fire near Mandaree. That fire was reported to be over 25,000 acres and has destroyed at least two home and multiple outbuildings.
The guard will help with digging a handline and conducting controlled burns.
Multiple fires broke out over the weekend across western North Dakota and one person has been killed.
A fire about one-quarter mile east of Ray killed a 26-year-old man from South Africa. A second person was taken to a hospital for critical injuries.
It’s estimated that as many as 40 wildfires have burned around 50-thousand acres.
Governor Burgum has praised firefighters, the National Guard and all involved in battling the wildfires saying that “the amount of property that has been saved is just incredible.”
Burgum visited affected areas and made stops in Tioga and Watford City on Tuesday.
SOUTH DAKOTA SECRETARY OF STATE SAYS OVER 270 NON-CITIZENS BEING PURGED FROM VOTER ROLLS IN STATE
PIERRE, S.D. – The Secretary of State says 273 non-citizens are being removed from the South Dakota voter roll. The removal is being executed by the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office (SOS). This discovery was part of a review to ensure the integrity of South Dakota’s elections and safeguard against improper voter registration.
The South Dakota Department of Public Safety (DPS) discovered the need for this correction and worked with the South Dakota Bureau of Information and Telecommunications to implement a fix and ensure election integrity.
“Ensuring the integrity of our elections is our highest priority,” said South Dakota Secretary of State Monae Johnson.
“We are proud of the thorough work done to safeguard South Dakota’s voter rolls. We worked closely with DPS to resolve this issue, and we’re constantly working to make sure that only eligible citizens are participating in our elections.”
There are 682,031 total registered voters in South Dakota, and 617,396 are considered active voters by the Secretary of State.
NEBRASKA ATTORNEY GENERAL ALLEGES PROBLEMS WITH STATEWIDE PETITIONS REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA BALLOT INITIATIVES
LINCOLN, NE – The Nebraska Attorney General is alleging more fraud has occurred on petitions that put medical marijuana initiatives on the November ballot. But organizers say the state is really just trying to silence the voices of tens of thousands of Nebraskans on what they call “technicalities.”
A cross-claim filed Friday in Lancaster District Court alleges widespread “fraud and notary malfeasance,” disputing the validity of about 49,000 Nebraska medical marijuana ballot initiative petition signatures — but it doesn’t mean that the signatures aren’t real or from people who don’t want to see the issue put to a vote in November.
The new documents allege that some signature collectors — and others who signed off on the petitions — broke the rules. For that reason, they’re arguing that everything those people touched should be tossed.
Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen already said this issue is on the ballot. In fact, since ballots went out last week, Nebraskans are already voting on it; in-person voting started Monday.
At the same time Evnen — in the lawsuit — is asking a Lancaster County District Court judge to consider voiding the election results based on the current findings.
Nebraska Families for Medical Cannabis said the families of this grass-roots effort are “appalled” that the state is “willing to stop at nothing” to deprive Nebraskans of the chance to vote on access to medical cannabis.
They question the motives of the Secretary of State “naming and attacking patients and caregivers” who have been fighting for access for a decade, calling it both “sickening and wrong.”
“We are appalled by the State of Nebraska and its elected officials who are willing to stop at nothing to deprive Nebraskans of the chance to vote on compassionate access to medical cannabis for suffering patients. The Secretary of State names and attacks patients and caregivers who have been tirelessly fighting for access for over a decade—based on alleged notary mistakes on a handful of petitions.
It is both sickening and wrong to go after individuals who have given everything to this fight. Nebraskans should be outraged that the state is trying to toss aside the will of the people, by using power, money and intimidation. We will not back down, and will continue to advocate for patients in this state as well as those who have been fighting alongside.”
– Nebraska Families 4 Medical Cannabis
They say Nebraskans should be outraged that state is trying to sidestep the will of the people with “alleged notary mistakes on a handful of petitions.”
Another advocacy group, Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, also issued a statement on Monday accusing the state of trying to “silence and disenfranchise” voters based on “primarily unsubstantiated technical issues.”
“It is appalling that the State of Nebraska is working to silence and disenfranchise the voices of tens of thousands of Nebraskans based on primarily unsubstantiated technical issues. These issues have absolutely nothing to do with the more than 115,000 voters who signed each of these petitions, or the dedicated patients and Nebraska citizens who worked hard to get the issue on the ballot. We will continue to fight for patients in this state and for election integrity to protect the voice and vote of Nebraska citizens.”
– Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana
While making a number of allegations against several others in the cross-claim — some of whom have children with epilepsy — the state has filed criminal charges against two individuals.
Twenty-four official misconduct charges were filed against 53-year-old Jacy Todd, a notary public from York who allegedly notarized medical marijuana petition pages submitted by 66-year-old Michael Egbert after they were dropped off at a Grand Island business — but not in Egbert’s presence, as required by law. Those charges came weeks after Egbert himself was charged with submitting fraudulent signatures on the medical marijuana petitions.
Judge Susan Strong is presiding over the case, deciding last month the initiatives cleared two of the four disputes main in the lawsuit filed on behalf of plaintiff John Kuehn — including the “single-subject” hurdle that was the undoing of a similar push in 2020.
But two others in a Lancaster County lawsuit challenging the two medical marijuana petitions have been allowed to proceed: claims that numerous signatures on the submitted petitions were invalid — signed by non-registered voters, were missing addresses, had mismatched dates of birth, and other related allegations — and should not have been accepted by Evnen; and allegations that Evnen failed to strike duplicate signatures.
Judge Strong has that precedent dictated some clerical and technical errors could be disregarded if that information could be inferred from other evidence in the petition. But she also noted that it was important to determine whether the alleged errors fell into that category.
If passed by voters in November, one ballot initiative would allow patients to purchase medical marijuana and the other would allow businesses to sell it.
