Constitutional Amendment IConstitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Medicaid funding condition
Explain it like I'm 5
Expanded Medicaid helps some adults pay for health care. This would keep that constitutional rule only while the federal government pays at least 90 percent, like sharing a bill only while a friend pays nine of ten dollars.
Yes vote
The constitutional requirement for Medicaid expansion would end if federal funding falls below 90 percent.
No vote
The constitutional requirement for Medicaid expansion would remain even if federal funding falls below 90 percent.
The question to ask yourself
If federal support falls, should coverage remain guaranteed or should the constitutional requirement end?
The case for
- Protects the state budget if federal support decreases.
- Keeps the state from being constitutionally required to absorb a larger share.
- Preserves lawmakers' ability to reconsider coverage if the funding deal changes.
Backed by: Republican Party of South Dakota, Sen. Casey Crabtree, Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen
The case against
- Could put coverage for about 30,000 people at risk if federal support falls.
- Creates an automatic trigger instead of allowing a more flexible response.
- Could reduce payments to rural hospitals serving Medicaid patients.
Opposed by: AARP South Dakota, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Democratic Party of South Dakota, No on I campaign
- Money
- No immediate tax change was identified, and no state cost estimate for a lower federal share was found.
- Don't be misled
- A yes vote would not immediately end expansion while the federal share remains 90 percent, but the measure's effect after a future decrease is disputed by the attorney general and lawmakers.