Skip to main content

South Dakota Career Connector

Sep 26th 2018 10:51 pm Response: #383413 Attached are comments of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
Sep 26th 2018 9:54 pm Response: #383409 I am writing to oppose the Medicaid changes proposed for South Dakota. As the retired director of a local county Human Service Program, I do not believe that this move is a positive for any of the citizens of South Dakota. The care people need will still be provided but it will be paid for with county dollars or higher hospital bills for all patients. I believe that work opportunities do need to be provided and I also believe that working is a goal. But I know too many situations where it will not be possible due to young children in the home or for individuals suffering mental and or addiction challenges. The proposal should be denied. Hugh Grogan

Respectfully, Hugh Grogan
Sep 26th 2018 9:49 pm Response: #383405 Please find attached comments from the National Health Law Program.
Sep 26th 2018 9:24 pm Response: #383401 I strongly oppose the South Dakota Career Connector proposal. The days of deserving and undeserving poor need to come to an end and this fad of work requirements is quite frankly disgusting and demoralizing. Do better South Dakota
Sep 26th 2018 8:44 pm Response: #383397 Because SD did not expand medicaid, the proposed change to SD regulations for medicaid qualification puts parents at risk of losing medicaid if they work and if they do not work. With no medicaid expansion the work requirement can disqualify paents from medicaid if their additional earnings puts them in a non-compliant income category. At the other extreme parents, including single parents caring for small children will be disqualified from medicaid if they are unable to leave the home to work.

Taking medicaid from low income families puts them at risk. And loss of health care options for low income families is also a risk for society at large.

Please do not approve the proposed change to medicaid qualifications.
Sep 26th 2018 8:12 pm Response: #383389 Some people don't meet the criteria for federal disability, but do have disabilities that limit the amount and kind of work they can do. Medicaid work requirements leave these people in an impossible bind. Unless they can find a job willing to accommodate the limitations of their disability, they lose access to medical care without which they can't work at all.

People born with genetic disease, people with injuries acquired through no fault of their own... these populations don't need more incentive to work for their health care. They need health care that enables them to work.
Sep 26th 2018 8:11 pm Response: #383385 My name is Jennifer Cowart and I am a physician. I wanted to comment that revoking healthcare coverage is a poor way of incentivizing people to work but a really good way to worsen chronic medical conditions for sick people. There are other ways to get people into the workforce but this is not what these requirements would do. Instead, this is going to add layers of bureaucratic waste for Medicaid administrators and for doctors and limiting access to healthcare. Chronic care does not happen via the ER. For all of these reasons, the American College of Physicians opposes imposing work requirements of this type on Medicaid: The American Medical Association also opposes: Multiple patient groups also oppose: Medicaid work requirements are not good healthcare policy and should not be enacted in South Dakota.
Sep 26th 2018 8:09 pm Response: #383381 I am concerned that parents in SD could lose their health coverage in the proposed plan. Our state has not taken Medicaid expansion, so parents could lose Medicaid even if they comply with the program. Depending on their wage, working a few more hours than they do already could put them over the limits for Medicaid. Then when the program’s short transitional coverage ends, they could be out of luck. Other parents may see the risk inherent in the program and simply decide they are healthy enough to just forgo the bother of another program with more requirements on their lives. The program has a troubling lack of incentive to keep this group of adults engaged. National efforts to get young adults covered have noted the difficulty of inspiring 18-to-34-year-olds to sign up, even when subsidies are available and no work is required. Although some may be encouraged by inspirational caseworkers, others with no imminent health issues may simply drop out. No matter how parents lose coverage, it is dangerous, because it is precarious for children when their parents’ health is at risk by having no regular health coverage. Sincerely, Chris Laughlin, Sioux Falls SD
Sep 26th 2018 7:55 pm Response: #383377 I do not support the new work requirements as they will disproportionately impact individuals with disabilities. Also, childcare is extremely expensive and it's unlikely for someone who qualifies for Medicaid would be able to afford the hours needed to allow them to work.
Sep 26th 2018 7:54 pm Response: #383373 The vast majority of Medicaid recipients do not abuse the system and want to work as much as able. This is a completely on necessary regulation and restriction and only adds bureaucracy to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.
First pagePrevious page Page
of 11 Next pageLast page